Were the Founding Fathers libertarians?

in principle, they only supported slavery and votes for landowners only to hold the republic together

He was right tho.

No matter how much libertarians tell you otherwise, 90℅ of the people in an industrialized society do not have economic freedom. The employees and the employers are not on an even playing field.

These problems would not exist if everyone owned a personal comfy farm where their only boss is mother nature.

A lot of people conflate the ideology of the founding fathers with the ideology of the Jeffersonian revolution in 1801.

There was a spectrum of people with many opposing viewpoints. Hamilton for one, who essentially wanted to transplant the British monarchy into the US with Washington at its head, and make the USA into a highly centralized state like those in Europe, and engage actively in European wars.

On the other side there was Jefferson who headed up the first opposition group in US politics, who wanted to disband the army, and nearly all government power and rely on the US's geographic position to defend them as they built an empire for liberty, who as a shining beacon of freedom would bring an end to all war.

Even Jefferson was thoroughly disgusted by what the US had become by the 1820's. Many of the founders had assumed that as the Natural Aristocracy the plebs would realize their superiority and defer to them, but the democratization of politics had lowered the level of political discourse and many had time to regret before they died they didn't put the whole only vote for us thing in writing.

>Even Jefferson was thoroughly disgusted by what the US had become by the 1820's. Many of the founders had assumed that as the Natural Aristocracy the plebs would realize their superiority and defer to them, but the democratization of politics had lowered the level of political discourse and many had time to regret before they died they didn't put the whole only vote for us thing in writing.

Got any good quotes about this?

but you can earn like 10x more by not being a subsistence farmer

Being a farmer in an industrialized society is nothing like being a landowning gentry or Yeoman farmer back in the day.

No because autism didn't exist in the 1700s

Are you sure?

Enjoy getting fucked by the government.

>Viewing politics through a lens of "government" v. "the people"
Absolutely Liberal

pic related is from a letter sent by Jefferson to John Adams.

In another letter shortly before the end of his life his feelings on the Missouri compromise had changed his opinion from faith that the people could be trusted to elect a natural aristocracy, to the decidedly more dour:

>I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves, by the generation of $76. to acquire self government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it. if they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves and of treason against the hopes of the world.

No, they were criminalists.

Seriously, look at all the protections criminals have. If you commit a crime you don't have to say or do shit, you get a trial where they have to prove you guilty beyond any reasonable doubt (it's actually a high standard, people get off for shit they obviously did all the time *cough* OJ *cough*), you get a free lawyer and a free suit, you get access to all sorts of diversion/parole/probation programs afterwards... and the victim just gets raped/murdered/stolen from and gets nothing.

Much of this stuff is case law that came later, but they base it straight from the Constitution that the founders wrote. It's way too protective of criminals.

>gay marriage, immigration, drugs
Ahh excuse you but Libertarianism is a redpilled ideology that hates all of those things kike.

>way too protective of criminals

What do you think they were?

This.

in so far as classical liberals are part of the libertarian coalition, many of them were, though I think its pretty clear that at least on social issues there are some pretty big differences.

What? He was the most ironfisted of them all. He was the one who wanted the Presidential term to be 7 years long and wrote a fuckton of papers arguing for the adoption of the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation. He basically wanted to copy and paste the British system except without a king.

this post really neutralized my neurons

> you get a free lawyer and a free suit... you get access to all sorts of diversion/parole/probation programs afterwards

the founding fathers didnt intend this...
that was the result of the living constitution heresy

there's no protection you can put in the constitution to protect against justices that will just make shit up to benefit their ideology

can you translate that wank into something a pleb could understand?

>No two people are equal and some people are naturally better than everyone else (the natural aristocracy). Therefore, we should make positions in government available to those people instead of a secure aristocracy through nobility where the individual is not superior (pseudoaristocracy). We will do this by giving the people the right to vote so they can remove the pseudoaristocracy and vote in the natural aristocracy.
Failed to take into account that future generations would have universal suffrage which absolutely gutted any chances for the natural aristocracy to ascend to where they were intended.

"Democracy is superior to Oligarchy for promoting men of talent and merit to positions of high office"

Don't the best and brightest naturally still rise to the top anyway?

I mean the average congressman is still pretty sharp by and large.

>Don't the best and brightest naturally still rise to the top anyway?
Not really. Most at the "top" these days are the ones that are most willing to play dirty and play ball.

>is still pretty sharp by and large
If you mean they all have nice degrees and such, sure. If you mean that they do their job effectively, properly, or ethically, that's a loud resounding NO.

the ones who rise to the top are the ones who are the best at marketing

i dont want marketers in government

Just because they're using position to enrich themselves doesn't mean they're not the best and brightest user.

Look at Shillary. Can you really call her stupid?

>be me
>subsistence farmer
>have a crop failure due to poor weather
>starve to death
so free

The point of the natural aristocracy is to use their position effectively for the nation, unlike the pseudoaristocracy which uses their position for self-enrichment. Shillary is the very definition of pseudoaristocracy. Comrade Sanders too. As for der Fuhrer, we'll need to wait and see, but I'm guessing he's a pseudoaristocrat as well.

Being good enough to convince other people of your bullshit is another hallmark of high intelligence desu

Shit people with deeper voices automatically command more respect from people right off the bat.

Welcome to humanity lmao

What's worse a guilty man being set free or an innocent one going to prison

That's bullshit though. Democracy is where the most popular rule, essentially highschool politics. In oligarchy the strongest or smartest rule, as nature intended. There is no barring from the natural course of the strongest of the society making their way to the top. Of course, if they rule in such a way as to anger the people they could be overthrown and the cycle repeats as it should. So in a way it's democratic.

>In oligarchy the strongest or smartest rule
>people this naive actually exist

>The guy that makes Coca-cola commercials is as intelligent as James Madison in the realm of political science

MADE ME THINK

>essentially highschool politics.
Which is why you use representational democracy with separation of powers

> In oligarchy the strongest or smartest rule, as nature intended.
Oligarchy is rule by genetic lottery.

>There is no barring from the natural course of the strongest of the society making their way to the top.
Wrong, there's nothing stopping wealth from coagulating into fewer and fewer hands until society can't handle the imbalance any more which precipitates crisis. In such situations the genetically privileged can stack the deck against people of talent or merit thanks to their considerable social advantages which are often institutionalized by political legislation

How did they get to the top then? They either got themselves in that position or got there because someone in their family was smart/strong enough which means they're genetically superior to the rest of the population. It's the natural order, the chief of the tribe is the strongest or most intelligent among them. The highest man or the highest family. It's a system based on competency.

>an actor reading a script advertising a product is the same as a guy that manages to manipulate and bullshit people from a seat on the school district council to us senator all while convincing them he has their best interests at heart all along the way

Really vulcanises my vagina

>which means they're genetically superior to the rest of the population
or that they're inbred as shit and only in power because they rode the coattails of the few members of their family who do possess talent and merit by luck of chance

Just look at how Athens and Rome reached the height of their power as a Republic as opposed to an aristocratic oligarchy or monarchy.
Oligarchies have never been an effective long term solution to the problems of running a nation. The only times oligarchies have come to power is when nations have experienced harsh times or temporarily lose their faith in democracy.

Yes some dumbass can get into power down the line if he's related to the right person, but some dumbass seems to always get into power under democracy.

I remember my grandmother saying she didn't vote for John Kerry because he was so ugly. PEOPLE (usually women) ACTUALLY VOTE LIKE THIS. They vote one way for stupid reasons, because someone told them the right lies.

We need a system based on competency, not popularity. Wow what do you know, nature has already set up such a system.

So overthrow them.

Maybe we don't need a bloody revolution every time a ruler is being a dick, maybe term limits are good. But the wrong people are getting elected. Maybe we need to return to exclusive democracy, where uneducated peasants (dumb), women (emotional thinkers), and foreigners (possibly hold special tribal interest) can't vote.

They were an exclusive republic. Only the competent could vote.

That wasn't the case for Athens, and though you had to qualify (usually through aristocratic birth) for the position of general, you still relied on the whim of the demos to stay in power.

Also all Roman citizens could vote, it's just that the aristocrat's votes were counted first and worth more.

>So overthrow them.
Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successor to bullets which is why most of the world now is some kind of democracy rather than oligarchy.

>maybe term limits are good.
A: term limits don't make sense when talking about an entrenched oligarchy.
B: from the standpoint of contemporary democracy term limits would only encourage the revolving door, making elected officials even less capable of doing their jobs, and being more reliant on unelected bureaucrats to actually do the job of governing and onthe special interests who can engage in rapid turn-over fundraising.

>where uneducated peasants (dumb), women (emotional thinkers), and foreigners (possibly hold special tribal interest) can't vote.
All that got us was a civil war where a small fraction of extremely powerful property owners could essentially buy out their own state governments in a bid to keep labor quantified and restrained against their will. We live in an age of mass education and the internet and home appliances. More humans have time to sit there thinking about politics than at any time in human history. Our institutions should reflect this

...

>but some dumbass seems to always get into power under democracy.
but in a democracy we only need to proverbially bring them down by encouraging voter turn out.

In an oligarchy we need to literally bring them down by murdering all of his paid thugs and painfully extricating him from the governing apparatus

>PEOPLE (usually women) ACTUALLY VOTE LIKE THIS.
That's funny, because I was attending an extremely conservative college and I knew white guys who were voting for Dubya solely on the grounds that they felt like he was the one with whom they wanted to have a beer and throw around the football.

That door swings both ways. That's why we need men of merit and talent to feel like a government post is a respectable profession and we don't do that by making them slaves of puppetmasters

>We need a system based on competency, not popularity. Wow what do you know, nature has already set up such a system.
Nature's system is jungle law: rule by alpha carnivore who most often prey on the young, the sick, and the old.

Caring for our young, sick, and old is what separates humans from beasts

Are you stupid? Libertarianism is all for gay marriage, immigration and drugs. It's the ideology of 'do whatever the hell you want'. Libertarianism is actually practiced economically today in the world, which is why its such a shithole, because big businesses are allowed to flourish and curbstomp all opposition without any government intervention.

>Libertarianism is actually practiced economically today in the world, which is why its such a shithole, because big businesses are allowed to flourish and curbstomp all opposition without any government intervention.

Not even close. "Government intervention" is what allows those big businesses to "curbstomp" everyone. Corporations themselves are legal constructs. They can only flourish because they control the legislators - a freer market would eat them alive.

> it's a libertarian denies that government intervention is needed in the market to ensure that it's truly free episode
> it's a libertarian "monopolies are government manufactured" episode

Yawn

this thread is fucking autism

Nope, it's not red pilled, it's the path to decay.
The only red pilled ideology is fascism/NS

==STOP CALLING IT LIBERTARIANISM, IT'S CALLED LIBERALISM==
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS LIBERAL

I know but the modern leftists stole the term so now socialism/progressivism == liberalism

Yes. Absolutely. Yessiree.

Not a difference of opinion among them. Especially not pertaining to government being centralized or decentralized.

Stay in school kids

>the most statist founding father a libertard

no, not even close

No, not in the modern sense. They were classical liberal republicans. Many had views that would closely line up with those held by libertarians today, but many also believed in a strong federal government. They weren't a hive-mind.

>Viewing politics through a lens of
"proletariat" v. "the bourgeoisie"
Absolutely retarded