Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican?
    #24449765 -

It's very interesting to see how politics changes over time. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, things were very different. I thought it would be fun to gauge which side modern conservatives and liberals might have been on.

Here were their positions:


Federalists

strong central government
strong military
central bank, national debt
monarchical leanings
federal republic
increase taxes, spending
aristocracy


Republicans

smaller central government
states' rights
agrarianism
social/civic liberty
pure democracy
cut taxes, spending
no aristocracy


Examples of Federalists include Alexander Hamilton, John Adams and John Jay (and to some extent George Washington, who was officially an independent but leaned that way). Republicans included Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and Andrew Jackson.

What party would you have supported? And why?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24450081 -

Weren't they called Democratic Republicans?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: schwarg] * 1
    #24450146 -

No, they were just called "Republicans" in their day. The other term came into use much later to differentiate them from what is now the modern party.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24450155 -

*edit*

Nevermind. But anyway, Republican for all the aforementioned reasons.


--------------------

Edited by schwarg (07/01/17 06:47 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24450233 -

I likely would have voted republican more often than not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: ballsalsa]
    #24450502 -

Republican, obv.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: ballsalsa]
    #24450505 -

innovation came out of industry, but aristocracy is something that leaves us better off eradicated (oh ambiguity my old friend).

i'd say i'd have probably been independent like Washington, and presumedly'd be left in the charge of warfarers, a commander, ready to fight, where people are stifled in debate.

then i'd be a Republican. because modernity sucks.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #24450864 -

Now I would be a Republican.

Really like the history of the question. Since I can Monday morning quaterback ( like most historical discussions)....I would be a Federalist for the timeframe specific to the countries founding.
The Federalist Party came into being between 1792 and 1794...Hamilton and bankers.

For its flaws; its what this country needed in its infantcy.
....the Articles of Confederation proved this. The thirteen colonies were in complete disarray.


To dig deeper, I would welcome any those who have or have not read the Federalist papers.... which touches this questions on many levels. You may even change what you would have considered yourself. Composed of logical argument and propaganda...its something in its own right.

Here is an excerpt by James Madison aka Publius...addressing why limits are required for States.

Number 44


"Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society. The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment."

Edited by SirTripAlot (07/02/17 12:11 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #24450890 -

too verbose, man.






(not)
the states work better together than separate. too bad people don't necessarily see it that way.

also regulations. the state and federal government needs some regulation...just not over-burdensome regulation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: akira_akuma] * 1
    #24450908 -

Understandable...I can only read it in snippets but I do appreciate the command of the language and intellect needed to string those sentances togeather.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #24450970 -

SirTripAlot said:
Understandable...I can only read it in snippets but I do appreciate the command of the language and intellect needed to string those sentances togeather.


i was kidding, man. of course a command of the language is respectable. people back in the day were much better at...just that...understanding and replicating more of a command of language...educated people, that is.

i was just making a joak. i mean, that, and i sort of tried to sum it up, his views, that is, the modern interpretation, i mean.

see that replication of language?^ who talks like that?












i do.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: akira_akuma] * 2
    #24452606 -

Federalist, minus the military spending and the aristocracy/monarchical leanings. The only part of the Republican agenda that appeals to me is social/civic liberty.

I think a much more interesting question that can be posed here is why the US has had only two major parties for the entirety of it's existence, while literally every other democracy has more than two. Tribal mentality runs deep.

This also leads to the next thought experiment: Taking what I just said, that I'd be generally a Federalist, but oppose some of their policies, Would I actually vote for them? Of course, the Federalist party candidate would be happy by this turn of events, because I mostly disagree with republican views and would be less likely to vote for them to begin with, making my choice effectively vote Fed of stay home, which isn't as bad as a Rep vote. (In the eyes of the Fed candidate)

As for why, it is quite simple. A central government is needed because without a central government, we are 50 individual mini nations. Central Banks, as well as the concept of national debt, was very well articulated by Hamilton. I am also of the opinion that had the US *not* made a central bank and insisted on repaying it's debts all the time, then the French would have never bailed us out during the Revolutionary war and we'd still be eating crumpets and drinking tea and spelling things with a U.

Next, Federal Republic is effectively what we have now, thankfully, because a full democracy would not work in a group larger than 10 people. Remember that a full democracy means that every citizen votes on every issue. Seeing as how  There are usually 10000-12000 individual bills introduced each session of the House and Senate (combined) and the average wordcount is ~1000, this is logistically impossible, not to mention the fact that this is more than most Americans are capable of reading in a lifetime. Seriously, that's like a 30,000 page book of legalese. Every year. Every vote. Oh, and don't forget to vote for the new elected coroner in St. Lawrence, NY. Who's running? Oh, you don't know? Good thing the US isn't a pure democracy, eh?

Increasing taxes and spending, just, yeah. Shit works. Notice how Obama's big black stimulus package ended up giving the stock market record highs within half a decade.

Now I don't agree with a system of aristocracy, but that's kind of the system we have now. The aristocrats are just the upper classes though. Sure, they may "technically" be equal, but come on, three extra zeros in your bank account makes the world a different place. Crash into a family while DUI and kill them all? Well, you can either go to jail  like a pleb for voluntary manslaughter, or you can buy yourself a simple "moving violation" with a six figure lawyer. Or a generous political donation. Whatever, if you got money, you can do whatever the fuck you want.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: Kryptos]
    #24452639 -

The greens and libertarians are making inroads but the msm and of course the elites who run things do not want the crooked apple cart upset. With all the scandals hopefully they will get bigger and actually win elections.


--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)

Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: Kryptos] * 1
    #24452730 -

Interesting post, Kryptos. I notice you are the first who did not respond with a preference for Republicanism, which is a nice change of pace.

I suppose I would be a combination of the two, myself, leaning more toward Federalism. I agree that we need a strong central government, or there would be chaos among the states, including enmities, as there was around the time of our nation's founding. Without a strong federal coordination, the states bicker, there are multiple currencies, trade becomes a serious issue, etc. I am an advocate for states' rights, too, however, as I am a supporter of a liberal interpretation of the Tenth Amendment. Higher taxes and spending, in concert with a larger central government, also seem necessary at this point considering how beset this nation and this world are by critical issues and problems. It seems to me that government in the modern age simply has to have a rather large minimum size, without which key areas do not receive enough attention. It's a complex world.

As for a strong military, I feel we need a strong enough military that is more interested in peace and defense than imperialism. We do not need one nearly as huge as the one we have, surely.

It seems clear we need a central bank, and a serviceable debt. Hamilton saw this early. But that's a pretty settled issue, it seems.

I would not have leaned in any way toward the British monarchy.

You gave an excellent explanation for why a federal republic is superior to a pure democracy. That, to me, is a no-brainer.

Clearly the dream of an agrarian society that was the hallmark of Republicanism is a bit of an anachronism at this point, although their emphasis on social and civic liberty was their greatest strength.

As for a putative aristocracy, I honestly would not be opposed to a coherent class of people comprised of the best men and women that is recognized as such. I don't think we have anything like this in America. If we have an aristocracy, it's composed of sports stars, Hollywood actors, pop singers and billionaires. Not quite the same thing, I think.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24452774 -

Stonehenge said:
The greens and libertarians are making inroads but the msm and of course the elites who run things do not want the crooked apple cart upset. With all the scandals hopefully they will get bigger and actually win elections.


The day that a Third Party wins the presidential election is the day that there will only be three families above the poverty line in the country.

DividedQuantum said:
Clearly the dream of an agrarian society that was the hallmark of Republicanism is a bit of an anachronism at this point, although their emphasis on social and civic liberty was their greatest strength.

As for a putative aristocracy, I honestly would not be opposed to a coherent class of people comprised of the best men and women that is recognized as such. I don't think we have anything like this in America. If we have an aristocracy, it's composed of sports stars, Hollywood actors, pop singers and billionaires. Not quite the same thing, I think.


I never really understood the agrarian dream. Who the hell would want to work 18 hour days of backbreaking labor in the hot sun, only to get paid poverty wages and have to decide either which utility you don't need next year or which kid starves to death this winter. Yeah, interestingly enough, most of the starvation in the US is in rural, agrarian areas. Kind of weird, seeing as they produce the food, but hey, at least the people that process the food have gold yachts.

For your second point, I think you are describing a meritocracy. China was famous for this, some time back (I wanna say Quin Dynasty?). This is a system that I think is much like communism: Great on paper, not so great in reality. I think the current aristocratic class in the US (like you said: Sports, Hollywood, Singers, Billionaires) is very telling: You get money through one of four ways: Skill and popularity, Beauty and popularity, Popularity alone, or having a rich daddy (look up the Forbes list of rich people, and then look at the list from 50 years ago, and compare the number of self made millionaires...hint, it's dropped. A lot. And the few self made left on the list are all old dudes.)

What that list there boils down to, for me, is popularity and wealth. That's how the free market picks the aristocrats. Now, how long do you think it will be until someone more popular but less meritorious gets the job? Or pays off the tester? Or, heck, let's dissect popularity some more: Physical beauty, Social Capital, Charisma. Physical beauty is dependent on Daddy's bank balance, because daddy can buy you the best creams and lotions and send you to the best cosmetic doctors. Social capital is being likable, whether because you're the guy that always buys the shots (rich daddy) or because you were the guy that always starts the party (in rich daddy's home) or because you're so talented, after daddy sent you to the highest rated private tutor in the nation with a Stradivarius to learn violin, instead of getting you a shift at his minimum wage cashier job at 16 so you could put food on the table. And finally, Charisma, which is in my opinion the least linked to money, though it is much easier to practice talking to people at the bar/lounge/gentleman's club than when you say "Hi, may I take your order?" 500 times a day. So, yeah, money still plays a factor.

Either way, the problem I see with a meritocracy is the same as the one that collapsed the system in ancient China. The next generation ran rampant with nepotism and bribery, and everything fell apart immediately.

This isn't even beginning to touch on the (quite disturbing) recent trend of anti-intellectualism, where people are *proud* of not knowing what they are doing and doing it anyway. Or the tendency to distrust experts, or at least the tendency to put the words of a Nobel prize winner on equal footing with the words of some quack on Youtube.

Edited by Kryptos (07/02/17 08:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24452788 -

DividedQuantum said:
As for a strong military, I feel we need a strong enough military that is more interested in peace and defense than imperialism. We do not need one nearly as huge as the one we have, surely.


This deserves and individual response. Define: "Enough". Is the military strong enough when it is higher compared to the next highest bidder? Is the military strong enough when it's average? Is the military strong enough when a single US soldier can take on the combined armed forces of the non-US nations on earth? (nuclear missiles?)

Plus, our military is entirely focused on Defense! That's why it's called the Department of Defense! And that's why we keep "defending" ourselves over in the Middle East! Or East Asia! Or wherever else the DoD has sent troops, because they haven't defended US soil a single time. They were the War Department back when Pearl Harbor happened.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: Kryptos]
    #24452909 -

As for the military, I would say that 40-50% of the current military allocation of funds would be more than enough to be superior still than any other military on Earth, and the way government works, a lot of that would just be waste, so you'd still have a roughly comparable capability. I think that would quite possibly be a lot more than strong "enough," but I think we can agree that that would suffice, and we'd be able to fund our discretionary budget amply.

Enough is hard to define these days, because so many people feel it's Uncle Sam's moral obligation to police the globe. And that's really a cover story for geo-politics and the lust for power and control, but nevermind. If we ceased our imperialist behaviors, enough would be tiny compared to what we have now, imo. But 40-50% of what we have now? Fund everything overnight? Why can't we agree on that?


And I agree that authentic meritocracies/aristocracies-worth-a-damn are very difficult to find in the historical record. I really like your points there. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #24452939 -

DividedQuantum said:
As for the military, I would say that 40-50% of the current military allocation of funds would be more than enough to be superior still than any other military on Earth, and the way government works, a lot of that would just be waste, so you'd still have a roughly comparable capability. I think that would quite possibly be a lot more than strong "enough," but I think we can agree that that would suffice, and we'd be able to fund our discretionary budget amply.

Enough is hard to define these days, because so many people feel it's Uncle Sam's moral obligation to police the globe. And that's really a cover story for geo-politics and the lust for power and control, but nevermind. If we ceased our imperialist behaviors, enough would be tiny compared to what we have now, imo. But 40-50% of what we have now? Fund everything overnight? Why can't we agree on that?


And I agree that authentic meritocracies/aristocracies-worth-a-damn are very difficult to find in the historical record. I really like your points there. :thumbup:



an entity "has to" spend twice as much on "defense" as every other nation combined when every other nation in the world despises the actions of said entity





Kryptos said:
They were the War Department back when Pearl Harbor happened.




wars are out, conflicts are in......marketing, brah


--------------------
channel your inner Larry David

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: demiu5]
    #24452948 -

there are priorities. the US has some places in which it can cut the fat. but not security. only look at the NSA. that's obviously a ridiculously expensive and unconstitutional an repulsive spending problem in America.


Spherical Objects - The Root

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Would you have been a Federalist, or a Republican? [Re: demiu5]
    #24453127 -

demiu5 said:
DividedQuantum said:
As for the military, I would say that 40-50% of the current military allocation of funds would be more than enough to be superior still than any other military on Earth, and the way government works, a lot of that would just be waste, so you'd still have a roughly comparable capability. I think that would quite possibly be a lot more than strong "enough," but I think we can agree that that would suffice, and we'd be able to fund our discretionary budget amply.

Enough is hard to define these days, because so many people feel it's Uncle Sam's moral obligation to police the globe. And that's really a cover story for geo-politics and the lust for power and control, but nevermind. If we ceased our imperialist behaviors, enough would be tiny compared to what we have now, imo. But 40-50% of what we have now? Fund everything overnight? Why can't we agree on that?


And I agree that authentic meritocracies/aristocracies-worth-a-damn are very difficult to find in the historical record. I really like your points there. :thumbup:



an entity "has to" spend twice as much on "defense" as every other nation combined when every other nation in the world despises the actions of said entity



To respond to DQ first: keep in mind that cutting military spending would also put a *lot* of people on the unemployment line. Even a modest cut would have significant effects. While some of these people (officers, specialists) could easily be picked up by the private sector immediately, Private Joe Infantry and nothing else is a bit fucked.

To respond to demiu5:
Maybe we should try spending that money on being less of a gigantic, gaping asshole to the rest of the world, so they don't have a bone to pick?

Something else related to military specifically, that I find quite interesting, is that other nations on the planet don't even need to do R&D anymore. The recent release of the NSA hacking tools, and the subsequent cyberattacks using those tools, demonstrates a clear trend. We make the biggest, baddest guns, but then we put them behind a paper door with a shitty lock, and everyone that wants the biggest, baddest, guns just has to kick down the door and stroll out with it. Because, let's be honest here, we don't spend money on defense. Or, for that matter, defense of our coolest toys. We spend money on offense, and hope that the best defense is a good offense.

Which is why the NSA is now scrambling madly to figure out a way to beat it's own attack software. They didn't plan on having it jacked, and they didn't develop countermeasures because that takes time and its like 3:30 on a Friday.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Totalitarian Agrarian Societies and Their Subsequenting iLLs Prodijal_Son 937 3 10/30/03 04:35 PM
by Prodijal_Son
* Republicans and Democrats Explain Something To Me.....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 starfire_xes 7,056 161 01/12/14 05:07 PM
by zappaisgod
* last night's republican debate
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 BrAiN 4,822 64 12/01/07 09:45 AM
by fireworks_god
* Another Republican Disgrace Ancalagon 734 7 11/21/04 08:58 PM
by PopeHypocriteIII
* 2012 Republican Frontrunners
( 1 2 all )		 learningtofly 2,722 25 05/25/11 01:02 PM
by memes
* Young Republican National Federation president allegedly puts sleeping mans penis in his mouth.
( 1 2 3 all )		 TheHateCamel 7,633 40 09/21/07 02:08 AM
by LucidDream
* If Republicans Were Democrats luvdemshrooms 3,202 17 11/20/06 03:47 PM
by pokermush
* Republican Party Animals GazzBut 516 0 09/04/04 01:07 PM
by GazzBut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
801 topic views. 3 members, 4 guests and 27 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.