Video: Feds fire on Brown Supporter in New Hampshire

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rebelnyell can you please expand on this comment and clarify your reasons on why this video is horsesh*t. Because personally from my stand point this video hold quite a lot of ground from various people and sources. If you can provide me with some information to prove that this video is horsesh*t other than a statement then the only thing at this moment that I will believe is horsesh*t is your comment.

Certainly.

Among other things, the video claims that the income tax is illegal/fraudulent and that the "average" American is not required to pay income tax on their wages. Nonsense.

The movie also spouts off a number of patently ridiculous "theories" and suppositions about the Federal Reserve, silly conspiracy notions that have been thoroughly debunked as fraudulent many times over.

The movie is about as much "documentary" as a John Wayne western.

Finally, the creator, Aaron Russo, is a liar. He continually says that his movie played to "ovations at Cannes", implying positive reviews at the famous film festival. In fact, what occurred was that he rented an inflatable screen and set it up on the beach in the city of Cannes, and curious onlookers straggled in to see what was going on, a few of them actually staying to watch the movie.

How's that?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Voluntary Social Discipline, huh? Hamilton could have taxed other goods and services, but decided to levy a discriminatory tax targeted at a specific group because they needed social discipline?

Mostly the federal government needed money, but Hamilton wanted to assert the power of the federal government by demonstrating they could make laws and enforce them. What's not to understand?

Quote by: Voluntary Shays' Rebellion was an armed uprising in Western Massachusetts from 1786 to 1787

That would be under the Articles of Confederation, with an extremely weak central government, as opposed to the Constitutional Democratic Republic that replaced it two years later, in 1789, with a much stronger central government.

And anyway, continue reading...

"When Shays and his forces attacked, Shepherd ordered a warning shot, followed by a single round into the oncoming mob. Two or three of the Shaysites were killed, and the rest fled north. On the opposite side of the river, Day's forces also fled north. The militia captured many of the rebels on 4 February 1787 in Petersham, Massachusetts; by March there was no more armed resistance."

No legitimate government can allow an armed insurrection to succeed against it, just like no legitimate government can allow its citizens to disregard it's laws with impunity. If the laws are bad, then you disobey them with the full understanding that you are willing to suffer the consequences, and, as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated, continue paying that price until the laws were changed.

Quote by: Voluntary "A Little Rebellion Now and Then Is A Good Thing" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson

A little rebellion was a good thing as long as they didn't actually threaten anything and mostly, as long as they didn't succeed!

Jefferson can be forgiven for having a soft spot for rebels. After all, the country he founded was created by an armed rebellion. But kindly note that a little rebellion was not a good thing while Jefferson was actually President, nor a good thing under any other U.S. President, since no domestic rebellion against the U.S.government has ever succeeded, no matter how much force was required to put them down.

Fries Rebellion -- "In July 1798, during the troubles between the United States and France now known as the Quasi-War, the US Congress levied a direct tax (on dwelling-houses, lands and slaves; sometimes called the Direct House Tax of 1798) of $2 million, of which Pennsylvania was called upon to contribute $237,000. There were very few slaves in the state, and the tax was accordingly assessed upon dwelling-houses and land, the value of the houses being determined by the number and size of the windows. The inquisitorial nature of the proceedings aroused strong opposition among the Germans, and many of them refused to pay. Fries, assuming leadership, organized an armed band of about 60 men, a force that grew to about 400 by mid-day, which included his son Ben Fries, who marched about the country intimidating the assessors and encouraging the people to resist. In March 1799, the governor called out the militia, and the leaders were arrested. Fries and two others were twice tried for treason (the second time before Samuel Chase) and were sentenced to be hanged, but they were pardoned by President John Adams in April 1800"

Quote by: Voluntary Looks like The Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion mimic The American Revolution; revolt under an oppressive government.

Under an oppressive government??? The Whiskey Rebellion was put down by the very American President libertarians most revere... George Washington ...under the bright, spanking new ORIGINAL INTENT of the new government.

Quote by: Voluntary Do you want to distort history or would you rather learn it?

It's you who should be learning. No government, no matter if they originated from an armed rebellion, can allow it's citizens to disregard it's laws or resist enforcement of those laws by force of arms. The Browns should know this, the Davidians knew this, the Weavers knew this, and YOU should know this.

.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Sonart .Mostly the federal government needed money, but Hamilton wanted to assert the power of the federal government by demonstrating they could make laws and enforce them. What's not to understand?

Sounds like the monarch in which we revolted against. Perhaps, if Hamilton used some common sense and not passed a discriminatory tax based on his personal values, then he wouldn't have caused a rebellion.

That would be under the Articles of Confederation, with an extremely weak central government, as opposed to the Constitutional Democratic Republic that replaced it two years later, in 1789, with a much stronger central government.

I can see that you are a Federalist, so we are going to naturally butt heads.

No legitimate government can allow an armed insurrection to succeed against it, just like no legitimate government can allow its citizens to disregard it's laws with impunity. If the laws are bad, then you disobey them with the full understanding that you are willing to suffer the consequences, and, as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi demonstrated, continue paying that price until the laws were changed.

I would love to hear your definition of a legitimate government. Thanks for conceding that the Law does not make something just.

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render [u]honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much[/U]. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." -- Thomas Jefferson

Too bad the rebellion was not against an honest and just Republican Governor in the first place.

"Furthermore, Massachusetts rewrote credit schemes at the time to be administered by elected rather than appointed officials. These efforts were resisted and obstructed by wealthy and influential parties, led by men like Governor James Bowdoin. Governor Bowdoin had strong control of the government. Because of the property eligibility requirements for office at the time, when Bowdoin was elected governor many of the people in western Massachusetts were outraged by what they perceived as injustice."

They had the f**king right to revolt.

A little rebellion was a good thing as long as they didn't actually threaten anything and mostly, as long as they didn't succeed!

Nice try, but I won't let you take this out context to fit into your mythical dreams.

Those states have suffered by the stoppage of the channels of their commerce, which have not yet found other issues. This must render money scarce and make the people uneasy. This uneasiness has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will provoke no severities from their governments.

Not paying your unjust taxes that you could not afford in which the state seizes your property and placing you in prison is pretty FUCKING severe. It was the government that was using unreasonable force.

Jefferson can be forgiven for having a soft spot for rebels. After all, the country he founded was created by an armed rebellion.

This country was founded upon ideas espoused by Locke and Paine, not an armed rebellion. Since you are apparently a Statist, I can see how you have this perverted view that this county was formed by an armed rebellion rather through enlightenment.

But kindly note that a little rebellion was not a good thing while Jefferson was actually President, nor a good thing under any other U.S. President, since no domestic rebellion against the U.S.government has ever succeeded, no matter how much force was required to put them down.

All hail the monarch. Too bad dissent is patriotic, not blind obedience.

Under an oppressive government??? The Whiskey Rebellion was put down by the very American President libertarians most revere...

Quite your nonsense. Washington was a Federalists.

It's you who should be learning. No government, no matter if they originated from an armed rebellion, can allow it's citizens to disregard it's laws or resist enforcement of those laws by force of arms. The Browns should know this, the Davidians knew this, the Weavers knew this, and YOU should know this.

I don't agree with the Browns, like I don't agree with your perverted sense of history.

[rebelnyell]

Certainly. Among other things, the video claims that the income tax is illegal/fraudulent and that the "average" American is not required to pay income tax on their wages. Nonsense.

Why is it nonsense though? You making this statement is the same as saying it is horsesh*t. Please say why you think it is nonsense and horses*t and why you think this video is a lie. This video uses quite a lot of things to prove that it is a fraud and against the constitution which you haven't proven wrong by making these statements. You just making a statement that something is horsesh*t or nonsense doesn't hold much ground from my perspective.

The movie also spouts off a number of patently ridiculous "theories" and suppositions about the Federal Reserve, silly conspiracy notions that have been thoroughly debunked as fraudulent many times over.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Federal Reserve, banking and economy
YouTube - Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve

The movie is about as much "documentary" as a John Wayne western. Finally, the creator, Aaron Russo, is a liar. He continually says that his movie played to "ovations at Cannes", implying positive reviews at the famous film festival. In fact, what occurred was that he rented an inflatable screen and set it up on the beach in the city of Cannes, and curious onlookers straggled in to see what was going on, a few of them actually staying to watch the movie. How's that?

How is he lying? It was played at the Cannes. He never claimed it was played at the Cannes Film Festival.
So what does that have anything to do with the content in the video? His statement may have been an over exaggerated one or an outright lie if you interpret it the way you did but it doesn't make the movie/video any less of it self.

[Charlatan]

Taxes to be paid to the government were a way to rebuild America at first, but is there still need to rebuild America from that war? At some point the authorities thought of using the taxes to pay off other things, and decided not to stop them. So you had basic services before taxes, and then started paying for them, making for better services? Did the services get better from the time of inset until now? Yes, they got better all over the world, but that is also because of the taxes themsleves. So how did the government provide services before taxes were introduced? Someone had to pay for it. Were they to rely on charity from people? Didn't the government have a way of making money other than off the people? If there were no taxes today, then the government would be poorer, and probably would be unable to provide services at all. So look at the government as a company, a company that taxes you regularly to provide funds for services that all people get to use.

Why not pay taxes? Because they dip into your funds and that means that you will be in more trouble to make ends meet. Taxes are a burden on anybody that pays them, so when you don't pay them you are better off. So by not paying for services you still get them, and most probably use them. Nobody wants to pay taxes, but they need to pay a dividend to the country on whose currency they use, by trading within the borders they agree that they have made all of that money within the country, using dollars or whatever for the oppurtunity to amass a greater deal of that currency. The government owns the gold that enables it to print money, so even that is a service, the provision of the currency to enable people to treade quickly on a reliable platform. So since it is the currecny you use, you should pay for the right to use it, as a means of security, knowing that it will be recognised as good for use.

The rest of this case is that the people didn't pay taxes, people got in the way, the police got armed as usual, they used reliable tactics to get the perps into custody as there was reason to believe that they might be dangerous, so, how did this become a debate?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rebelnyell Why is it nonsense though? You making this statement is the same as saying it is horsesh*t. Please say why you think it is nonsense and horses*t and why you think this video is a lie. This video uses quite a lot of things to prove that it is a fraud and against the constitution which you haven't proven wrong by making these statements. You just making a statement that something is horsesh*t or nonsense doesn't hold much ground from my perspective.

All of the arguments in the movie have been thoroughly debunked, some in threads here, by me.

Do some reading:

Tax Protester FAQ

Income Tax Page

How is he lying? It was played at the Cannes. He never claimed it was played at the Cannes Film Festival.

The implication was clearly that it was entered in the film festival. Why else would someone bother to go to Cannes and show a movie on the beach to homeless people and drunks?

So what does that have anything to do with the content in the video? His statement may have been an over exaggerated one or an outright lie if you interpret it the way you did but it doesn't make the movie/video any less of it self.

So the creator of a supposedly nonfiction work is a known liar/exaggerator - and that isn't supposed to reflect on his work? \

If you have specific questions about the tax code and its legality, i'd be happy to answer them. I realize you're new here and might not have read all the threads wherein I have already done this. Start a new thread and ask your questions.

Frankly, I'm less qualified to handle the Federal Reserve myths, but I could give it a shot. There are others here who have done a better job then me.

[rebelnyell]

Quote by: tivodan1116 All of the arguments in the movie have been thoroughly debunked, some in threads here, by me. Do some reading: Tax Protester FAQ Income Tax Page

Alright I will read these when I get the chance thank you for providing me with this information.

If you have specific questions about the tax code and its legality, i'd be happy to answer them. I realize you're new here and might not have read all the threads wherein I have already done this. Start a new thread and ask your questions.

I only have one simple question at the moment that comes to my mind. Where does the money from the income tax go? I will probably have more once I read the pages you linked above. Here is just one example I could quickly find:
Why you’re always broke: 40% of your money goes to taxes - Homeland Stupidity

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Voluntary Sounds like the monarch in which we revolted against. Perhaps, if Hamilton used some common sense and not passed a discriminatory tax based on his personal values, then he wouldn't have caused a rebellion.

Sounds more like politics as usual... but then, I'm not among the folks on this board who believed our founders walked on water.

I'm simply pointing out -- as per the topic of this thread -- that tax resisters are nothing new, have been around since almost day one of our country's libertarian founding, and that the federal government was as tough on them then as you think they are today.

Quote by: Voluntary I can see that you are a Federalist, so we are going to naturally butt heads.

LOL!! I was simply pointing out a fact, dude. The Constitution of 1789 provided for a much stronger central government than did the Articles of Confederation that preceded it.

Are you denying it?

But yes... I'm a Democrat, which I suppose makes me a "Federalist". I believe the Federal government has a valuable role in protecting working Americans from the excesses of the free market.

Quote by: Voluntary I would love to hear your definition of a legitimate government. Thanks for conceding that the Law does not make something just.

Don't be obtuse. And who ever said that laws are automatically just. I simply said no legitimate government... a government recognized by it's citizens and by other governments ,,,can allow it's citizens to disobey it's laws with impunity. (Unless, as occasionally happens, a regime chooses not to enforce laws for political reasons. Witness President Bush's defiance of the Supreme Court ruling on CO2 pollution)

Quote by: Voluntary Too bad the rebellion was not against an honest and just Republican Governor in the first place.

Jefferson still would not allow a rebellion against his government to succeed, and would have used every power at his disposal to put it down. He just would have been merciful in dishing out punishment once it was put down.

And no one's going to be happy with every decision a government makes, not matter how "honest and just" they may be. The Browns make it clear that some folks just can't stand being told what to do, despite living in the freest, least taxed democratic nation in the world.

Quote by: Voluntary Nice try, but I won't let you take this out context to your fit your mythical dreams.

Well then, by all means, Voluntary... correct me. When has our government ever allowed an armed insurrection to succeed?

Quote by: Voluntary They had the fucking right to revolt.

Toranaga: "There is no mitigating factor for rebellion against your liege lord."

Blackthorne: "Unless you win."

Toranaga: (stares at Blackthorn, then laughs) "Very well, you may have named the one mitigating factor."

No legitimate government can allow an armed rebellion against it to succeed... no matter HOW justified it might be.

Quote by: Voluntary Not paying your unjust taxes that you could not afford in which the state seizes your property and places you in prison is pretty FUCKING severe.

Unlike the folks of western Massachusetts in 1794, very, very few Americans find paying income tax so unjust that they willing to pay the price of civil disobedience.

Quote by: Voluntary This country was founded upon ideas espoused by Locke and Paine, not an armed rebellion.

My, aren't you choosy on which specific ideals our country was founded upon.

Quote by: Voluntary Since you are apparently a Statist, I can see how you have this perverted view that this county was formed by an armed rebellion rather through enlightenment.

{{YAWN}}

"An honest person can concede that 200 years ago, attitudes about race were dramatically different than they are today and was only just beginning to change during the Age of Enlightenment, and that even many of those Americans who were strongly opposed to slavery were still racially bigoted... not the least example being Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator himself." -- Sonart to BobbyO

I'm not an idiot, Voluntary... I know this country was a direct result of the Enlightenment. It was also a direct result of, and informed by, an armed rebellion against the superpower of the day, Great Britian.

And if YOU are not an idiot, you also should know that statism is a direct result of the Enlightenment turned indifferent by the industrial revolution.

Quote by: Voluntary Quite your nonsense. Washington was a Federalists.

{{Pfffft!!}} Tell that to the Libertarians around here. This board used to be a coven of Libertarians.

Quote by: Voluntary I don't agree with the Browns, like I don't agree with your perverted sense of history.

What?? That even a government that prides itself on being founded by rebellion, who's founders romanticized the concept with the 2nd Amendment, "founded upon ideas espoused by Locke and Paine" would never themselves allow an armed rebellion to succeed against their own regimes? That no government, not matter how benign, can allow its citizens to defy its laws with impunity?

Yeah, I guess that's pretty perverted.

Quote by: Charlatan This video uses quite a lot of things to prove that it is a fraud and against the constitution which you haven't proven wrong by making these statements.

The Constitution makes perfectly clear the mechanism for determining what is or isn't Constitutional... The Supreme Court of the United States and "in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.".

Article III, Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,...

Not by homemade videos.

Quote by: Charlatan How is he lying? It was played at the Cannes.

And Bill Clinton didn't lie when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

.

[rebelnyell]

I couldn't edit my post so I will be making another.

All of the arguments in the movie have been thoroughly debunked, some in threads here, by me. Do some reading: Tax Protester FAQ Income Tax Page

Alright I will read these when I get the chance thank you for providing me with this information.

If you have specific questions about the tax code and its legality, i'd be happy to answer them. I realize you're new here and might not have read all the threads wherein I have already done this. Start a new thread and ask your questions.

I only have one simple question at the moment that comes to my mind. Where does the money from the income tax go? I will probably have more once I read the pages you linked above. Here is just one example I could quickly find:
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005...goes-to-taxes/
Here is another video from Ron Paul in which this income tax problem per-say would relate to the other videos I have posted on his comments about the Federal Reserve.
YouTube - Ron Paul on CNBC 2004 - UnConstitutional Income Tax
YouTube - Ron Paul on Taxes
Ron Paul 2008 › Issues › Debt and Taxes
Inflation- Alive and Well — Ron Paul 2008
Ron Paul on Tax Reform
Cough Up by Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul Speaks Out!
Why An Income Tax is NOT Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
From what I have read now it seems as if this relates more to just the income tax. It relates to the Federal Reserve, the massive spending of our government, what this money actually goes to, and our debt.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Sonart I'm not among the folks on this board who believed our founders walked on water.

I don't either.

I'm simply pointing out -- as per the topic of this thread -- that tax resisters are nothing new, have been around since almost day one of our country's libertarian founding, and that the federal government was as tough on them then as you think they are today.

I don't believe this that the government is as tough on them as they were during Shay's and The Whiskey Rebellions. Those Rebellions were provoked by the government. I was trying to point out the difference.

LOL!! I was simply pointing out a fact, dude. The Constitution of 1789 provided for a much stronger central government than did the Articles of Confederation that preceded it. Are you denying it?

No, I am not.

But yes... I'm a Democrat, which I suppose makes me a "Federalist". I believe the Federal government has a valuable role in protecting working Americans from the excesses of the free market.

Believe it or not, we could probably find some common ground here. I believe that some regulation is useful and needed.

Jefferson still would not allow a rebellion against his government to succeed, and would have used every power at his disposal to put it down. He just would have been merciful in dishing out punishment once it was put down.

Unlike Hamilton, Jefferson did not provoke a rebellion. Port or wine could have been taxed. Instead Hamilton choice to grind an economy to a halt based on his values.

Well then, by all means, Voluntary... correct me. When has our government ever allowed an armed insurrection to succeed?

The American Revolution was a succession. The DoI is the documentation of succession. You are correct, the US government has never allowed a armed insurrection to succeed, even though it may have caused them in the first palce with unjust taxes.

Unlike the folks of western Massachusetts in 1794, very, very few Americans find paying income tax so unjust that they willing to pay the price of civil disobedience.

That is why I do not agree with the Browns a 100%. think the government could be reduced along with taxes. A minimal government is needed at least to protect individual rights, property rights, and contracts along with providing some basic services.

At the same time, the Browns are making a political statement that it is unconstitutional to pay taxes on your labor. They also had the right to show up to a court house and defend themselves. They are also a little loony. The recognize the State of NH, but refuse to pay them property taxes. I think they are a lttle extreme.Check out some of the quotes on the wikipedia page. Edward and Elaine Brown - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be great if we were the sole owners of the fruits of our labor. Currently, this is more of a ideal than a reality.

My, aren't you choosy on which specific ideals our country was founded upon.

How many do you want me to list? Locke and Paine were influential. It could be argued that without them, the American Revolution may not have happened. Their were many ideologies among the FF, but Locke influenced a bunch of radical and Paine lit the spark.

and that even many of those Americans who were strongly opposed to slavery were still racially bigoted... not the least example being Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator himself.

I know Lincoln expressed bigotry towards blacks, and I know that the primary cause of the Civil War was not to free the southern slaves.

And if YOU are not an idiot, you also should know that statism is a direct result of the Enlightenment turned indifferent by the industrial revolution.

You can expand on this idea if you'd like before you call me an idiot. I would like to hear what you have to say.

{{Pfffft!!}} Tell that to the Libertarians around here.

I will. Where did anyone get the idea that Washington was not a Federalist?

This board used to be a coven of Libertarians.

What happened to them all?

What?? That even a government that prides itself on being founded by rebellion, who's founders romanticized the concept with the 2nd Amendment,

I am not sure what you mean by romanticized the with the 2nd amendment.

"founded upon ideas espoused by Locke and Paine" would never themselves allow an armed rebellion to succeed against their own regimes?

Are you sure about that? Why did Locke write John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter 19 and Paine write Common Sense (pamphlet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That no government, not matter how benign, can allow its citizens to defy its laws with impunity?

That depends on the law. There are plenty of absurd ones that are not re-enforced.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: rebelnyell I only have one simple question at the moment that comes to my mind. Where does the money from the income tax go?

Well, the vast majority of it goes into the General Fund of the United States, to pay for government spending of various kinds.

Your question is I sense a political one, not schematic.

I personally think the income tax is horrible and oppressive and should be repealed. But claiming it is "illegal" or "optional" or that it only applies to foreign income and other such nonsense, as the film does, is useless stupidity. For the money they spent making that barrel of lies they could have made a decent film exposing, for example, government waste.

[Rainbow]

Riley is on trial this week for allegedly donating a firearm to Ed and Elaine Brown

Can we put on trial a guy who donates some items to others ?
Is that legal to possess fire-arms, in N.H. ?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Rainbow Can we put on trial a guy who donates some items to others ? Is that legal to possess fire-arms, in N.H. ?

Well, if it was after their trial and verdict, the Browns were convicted felons at that point, and I believe pretty much everywhere in the US it is illegal to intentionally allow a firearm under your control to fall into the hands of a convicted felon.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well, if it was after their trial and verdict, the Browns were convicted felons at that point, and I believe pretty much everywhere in the US it is illegal to intentionally allow a firearm under your control to fall into the hands of a convicted felon.

Thank you :-)

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Voluntary You can expand on this idea if you'd like before you call me an idiot. I would like to hear what you have to say.

Sorry about the ‘idiot’ thing… it didn’t quite come out the way I'd intended.

Anyway, as briefly as possible, that would be where Locke, Smith and Paine run into Charles Dickens.

You make a point that people are entitled to the fruits of their labors. Unfortunately, total laissez-faire is certainly more feasable in agrarian economies where people have access to property. In colonial America, 95% of the population lived on family farms, and business consisted of family owned shops, local craftsmen and small partnerships, while plantations, trading companies and ship building were the biggest concerns going. Many such businesses were available for a minimum of capital, and with a national border consisting of frontier wilderness, anyone, even a former indentured servant, could carve out as much property as he could hold onto.

Meanwhile, labor for the nation's major cash industries -- cotton, tobacco, sugar -- was handled by the greatest of all labor saving devices.... slaves.

With the industrial revolution comes mass production of goods and mass urbanization, as well as increased capitalization for factories and machinery. What then are the fruits of child labor, sweat shops, slave wages, dangerous and unhealthy factories, company stores, mining of industrial materials, etc. that become the lot of most workers? The fruits of property rights became the forbidden fruits of those lucky enough to actually own commercial property.

Suddenly to many people, and with good reason, Karl Marx looks far more attractive than Adam Smith.

Thus it becomes a role of the federal government to help make sure "The People" -- the ones doing the actual labor -- had their own fair shot at the pursuit of happiness. By 1900, the worst depradations of the Guilded Age and the Robber Barons has become targets for government reform and the beginnings of regulation, and the rest is history.

I will. Where did anyone get the idea that Washington was not a Federalist?

Alas, you missed out on the Golden Age of Volconvo's Libertarian Illuminati... Patrick Henry, Osborn F. Enready, Milton Bradley and Morgan Freeman. The first two in particular used to hold forth on threads that were essentially self-indulgent lecture series on Libertarianism. And George Washington was the last "Citizen President" for whom government that governed the least governed the best. As far as they were concerned, Madison v. Marbury was the death knell of the original intent of the Constitution, and Washington the last great President.

Don't ask me to explain.


.