Thomas Jefferson once said ...

"Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government..."

 

Guess you forgot Mr. Jefferson's logical solution to that, a sentiment he repeated over and over, keep government small and local unless absolutely necessary. He put DC in a swamp for a reason. Oh no! context ruined the leftysoundbite! Awwwwwww.

 

Would that be the same Jefferson who nearly bankrupted America by banning trade? - No context ruins white wing waffling. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

Assuming he did say that, which is often not the case with Thomas Jefferson quotes, I am sure there would be 3 or 4 different quotes that would seem to go in other directions. He had no clear philosophical core. Most of what we have of his is from letters and what his beliefs were seemed to be relative to whomever he was writing at any given time. Thomas Jefferson, however, did try to advance an agricultural society so that people would be less dependent on mercantilism and government. I don't think you can honestly put forth one side of that coin without the other and really have fidelity to the complete concept. He didn't want people to be dependent on anyone for their own survival under the guise that dependency obstructs democracy.

 

This is why Capitalism must be regulated. Time and time again, deregulation has resulted in anything from minor harm to epic worldwide recessions.

No body other than the government can better prevent private corporations from abusing or exploiting the public.

 

I feel this is the truth.

Especially in the modern age where corporations can have bigger operating budgets than some countries. Without government, even with the risk of corruption, there is no other mechanism for regulating them.

That doesn't mean that every regulation we have is justified or necessary, or that every department in the government is necessary, but it does mean government itself is necessary for enforcement of any standards that the people wish to have. The free market is not tilted towards fairness when left to it's own devices.

This is why I don't support small government or libertarian candidates, because they can never provide a means for dealing with this particular problem.

 

Ironic, due to your absurd soundbite.

Your presuppositions are as follows:

1. Jefferson alone chose the location of D.C.
2. D.C. is built on what was a swamp
3. Jefferson's reason to build D.C. on a swamp was to keep government small

Sorry, but none of these "facts" represent reality. This is yet another example of the right re-writing history to suit their agenda. It reminds me of the assertion that the Constitution written based on Christianity, despite Jefferson himself stating that there should be a "wall" between Church and State.

 

Banning trade may have been an absolutism, but IMO prior trade restrictions enabled American growth. In an "Open Economy", black holes suck money out of the economy.

I prefer a Mixed Economy, there's no such thing as a "free trade", but there doesn't have to be a bad trade either. Prioritize both U.S workers/corporations, while maintaining foreign flexibility.

 

Banning trade? You mean the transatlantic slave trade?

 

I agree with all of this. Capitalism is an artificial system layered on top of free markets. Unfortunately, this man-made construct is flawed and prone to corruption. Libertarians and small-government types never seem to be able to explain how to prevent control corporate abuse other than proposing silly contract laws or more corporations that will come in and "fix" the problem. There is a lot of money in goverment -- especially amongst the powerful fat cats -- but the government, as a whole, cannot be bought. This is what makes it the best tool for keeping corporations in check.

 

Every time the Right starts to succeed in pushing us towards a corporate plutocracy...there's a backlash. Every time.

 

Yes, look how well that model has served us since the "progressives" took power in the early 1900's. Recessions, corruption, and exploitation have been virtually nonexistent...

 

Top Ten Great Fake Quotes From the Founding Fathers-

10. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." -- George Washington

9 "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse." -- Charles Pinckney

8 "You don't understand! I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I could've been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am." -- John Adams

7 "Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." -- Alexander Hamilton

6 "Here's looking at you, kid." -- Thomas Jefferson

5 "Go ahead, make my day." -- James Madison

4 "All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up." -- Samuel Adams

3 "May the Force be with you." --- John Hancock

2 "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."-- Thomas Paine

1 "You talkin' to me?" ---Ben Franklin

(as a poster here claims...PROVE they didn't say them. )

 

The last economic disaster (real estate bubble) was the result of over-regulation by Federal oversight of Fannie Mae which mandated giving loans to under-qualified borrowers via such things as 'stated income' loans. Borrowers seeking such loans had the full force of the Federal Government in the form of the Fair Housing Act that can bring down lenders accused of discrimination due to low income.

Let's see now, the government opened up a whole new market for lenders while at the same time threatened them for NOT giving loans to unqualified borrowers....What did you think would happen?

No real Capitalist would ever give money to a person or entity that could not pay it back with interest.

Another thought...Government creates draconian tax punishments for most individuals and small companies who make increased profits but it also creates loopholes for the uber rich which include most of our congress.

 

There is no other mechanism for regulating them? I guess you've never heard of the "free market" where millions of people use the power of individual choice and competition to keep private business in check? A tiny, elite minority with a coercive monopoly on "regulation" is called state socialism, and it's a wretched failure that causes mass death and oppression everywhere it is tried, but, hey, I'm sure this time it'll be different!

You say this, but what are you basing this on? Who defines what is "fair"?

It's called freedom and it works just fine. It was proven to work better than any other system in history between 1776 and 1860.

 

This would mean more if you showed us an example of Thomas Jefferson actually making that statement.

As Abraham Lincoln once noted: you can't trust unsubstantiated quotes on the internet.

 

You mean when we had slave labor? That kind of "freedom" works just fine?

 

What "right" are you talking about? After Lincoln established federal supremacy, the "progressive" movement took over both parties and began its crusade to centralize more and more power with the federal government. We've been living under the paradigm of increasing centralization and foreign imperialism since the late 1800's, and what has it got us? The very thing you say you are against, a corporate plutocracy that has hijacked the central government, and why wouldn't they hijack it? With all that power and wealth concentrated with one entity, the incentive to corrupt it for private gain is irresistible. Just another example of well-intentioned but naive leftists worsening the problem they claim to be solving.

Because the only thing that happened between 1776 and 1860 was slavery. That is the "progressive" view of American history.

1776 - 1860: SLAVERY
1861 - 2014: FREEDOM

 

Progressives took power in the early 1900's?

The Clinton era was highly prosperous. It not only allowed for the only surplus deficit since WWII, but the biggest economic booms in history from 1991 to 2001 (the Clinton era). Obama will be known as the President who led American out of the worst recession in American history.

Basically, Democrats are good for the economy.

 

1. The rise of industrials and corporations occurred then....and Lincoln had nothing to do with it. They abused workers and even their customers...and the workers and customers fought back....AGAINST people who were fine with a plutocracy.


2. Yes, when you discuss macro-economics of America from 1776-1860....you MUST include millions of slave laborers, which created wealth in the South that also impacted the North..


3. Radical libertarianism...the idea we can go back to Pre-1860s Federal power...is just used by corporatists and plutocrats to win votes for their strongest allies, the Republicans. 99% of libertarians, even the most extreme ones....vote Republican.

Otherwise how do you explain the fact they are still so fond of the Paul Family...with both Ron and Rand loyal Republican politicians.

 

When you spot somebody on the Right who wants to go back to the pre-20th Century....you know you're dealing with a Glenn Beck fan or some equally radical ideology.

Beck however knows it's a hoax....since it'll never happen, so he can keep railing about the 20th Century for years to come....despite the fact all his "great childhood memories of America"...occurred in THE most progressive period of our history...the 1960s.

 

Adam Smith once said

“The interest of [businessmen] is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public ... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ... ought never to be adopted, till after having been long and carefully examined ... with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men ... who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public”


of course that didn't stop us from letting them write our national healthcare law

 

I think you have me confused with the person who started this thread, the premise of which you have also now negated. Thanks for the help.

BTW, are you talking about the Embargo Act? Could you possibly distort any more dishonestly? I suppose out-and-out war would have been preferable?