Share founding fathers quotes

[ContrarianLemming]

(the ones patriots never quote)

"the most common, endurable source of faction(class) has been the various and unequal distribution of property, those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society"

-Madison

[The Douche]

Thomas Paine is the best, read his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice". He became a socialist, clearly.


Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state.


Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.


It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the humanrace.


Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community ground-rent (forI know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod in this plan is to issue

It goes on. Excellent pamphlet, just a bit of common sense. Not to mention Paine's other excellent radical work against monarchy and hierarchy in general.

[ComradeOm]

Thomas Paine is the best, read his pamphlet "Agrarian Justice". He became a socialist, clearlyNot sure I would go that far. Paine is a very good read* but I'd consider him to be more of a radical (in the later French sense) in that his social concerns only complemented his core liberalism. Unlike most contemporary socialists, for example, he didn't reject the institution of private property per se but merely recognised, like Voltaire, that it caused inequalities that should be alleviated through legal mechanisms

Incidentally, you forgot the last line of this quote (emphasised) which relates to the Jensen thread ;)

Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.

*Although Agrarian Justice does tend to get bogged down in detail on specific tax policies and the like

[Os Cangaceiros]

Government is not eloquence; it is not reason; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

That's probably my favorite quote from an American revolutionary.

[The Douche]

Unlike most contemporary socialists, for example, he didn't reject the institution of private property per se but merely recognised, like Voltaire, that it caused inequalities that should be alleviated through legal mechanisms


But Paine recognizes it as the source of inequality. And does advocate for either distribution of land for everyone, holding it in common for the community, or taxing the owner for the benefit of the community. Clearly its proto-socialist thought.


Incidentally, you forgot the last line of this quote (emphasised) which relates to the Jensen thread

So? Obviously I would not have made it to 1,000 posts on this wesbite if I was an actual primitivist. You're not telling me anything new about primitivism, I know what it means, I know it means shorter lifespans and the deaths of lots of people.

[Who?]

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." - Thomas Paine

How cool was this guy? :cool:

[The Vegan Marxist]

I would say that Thomas Paine was a the most "socialist-like" during those times within the States, but I wouldn't exactly full-out call him a Socialist. Though, it's hilarious seeing Glenn Beck talk about all his anti-socialist rhetoric & then in the same sentence talk so gloriously about Thomas Paine. :laugh:

[Os Cangaceiros]

I would say that Thomas Paine was a the most "socialist-like" during those times within the States, but I wouldn't exactly full-out call him a Socialist. Though, it's hilarious seeing Glenn Beck talk about all his anti-socialist rhetoric & then in the same sentence talk so gloriously about Thomas Paine. :laugh:

There was a sizeable faction within the independence movement in the USA during the pre-war/war period that was just as egalitarian and revolutionary as Thomas Paine was...people like Thomas Young and certain other members of the Sons of Liberty supported wealth re-distribution, spoke disdainfully of the mechant class and had a view of religion that would have disturbed those commentators who today think of the revolutionary movement as being grounded in Christianity. Thomas Paine was just the most famous.

[ComradeOm]

But Paine recognizes it as the source of inequalityAs did Voltaire, Rousseau (you should check out his Discourse on the Arts and Sciences), Buffon, and a host of other Enlightenment philosophers. It was a pretty common response to the tradition notion of divine rights to land. All this, and other contributions, was later picked up by Marx et al but I still wouldn't call these thinkers socialist. Not when there were a host of contemporaries (Saint-Simon probably being the most obvious prior to Owen) who did espouse the abolition of private property

Its a small point but one that I feel is important to remember before we go and appropriate everyone who ever had a notion of social inequality. Particularly so in this thread - none of the Founding Fathers were socialist so what reason, aside from throwing old quotes at conservatives, is there to compile a list of their quotations?


So? Obviously I would not have made it to 1,000 posts on this wesbite if I was an actual primitivistAnd I'm not accused you of being one. I just wanted to provide a bit of context for that quote

[Gustav HK]

"The United States is in no sense founded upon
Christian Doctrine" - George Washington

From here:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/foundr0g.htm

[NGNM85]

I think this one is prescient; "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty, nor safety." (Ben Franklin)

[The Douche]

Not when there were a host of contemporaries (Saint-Simon probably being the most obvious prior to Owen) who did espouse the abolition of private property


I just consider it important (even if just to myself) to find things like this, obviously anti-capitalist and proto-socialist, if not socialist, being advocated by the american revolutionaries.


none of the Founding Fathers were socialist so what reason, aside from throwing old quotes at conservatives, is there to compile a list of their quotations?


You don't see the political value in the appropriation of the founding fathers? Have you seen the tea party?


And I'm not accused you of being one. I just wanted to provide a bit of context for that quote

No worries. I know the context but its irrelevant, primitivists don't want the technology that came with civilization either. Its not like they want the positives without the negatives. Jensen even acknowledges this, as he has chrons(sp, i dunno) disease and an end of civilization essentially garuntees an almost immediate death for him.

[ComradeOm]

You don't see the political value in the appropriation of the founding fathers? Have you seen the tea party?No to both, and this is probably where the differences between us are. Put simply, I am not an American and I don't share that peculiarly American trait of elevating the Founding Fathers (or the constitution they produced) to near demi-god status. Its always very odd seeing Americans arguing over the wording of this or that amendment/article when most European nations have undergone 2-3 bouts of intense political upheaval/reform in the past century or two*. So, I can appreciate the Founding Fathers but don't feel the need to claim them as my own

The other problem is that, like all holy scriptures, anyone can extract a few quotes here and there to support whatever they want**. Now I don't like this because a) its a cheap way of scoring points that usually misrepresents the work in question, and b) the opposition can do the exact same as well. I'm fairly sure that the Tea Party movement, and others on the right, also make extensive use of Founding Father quotes. So who's collection is right? Does it matter?

Don't get me wrong, if you think that there's a purpose to this, and in America you are infinitely better placed than me to judge, then fine. Personally I'd be just as happy to accept the Founding Fathers as they were (ie, a collection of liberal theorists and rich land/slave owners) by admiring their progressive policies and condemning them when they're wrong. Not folding them into whatever political bracket suits today

*France, whose revolution occurred almost two decades after that of America, is on its fifth republic. And that's not including the various restoration regimes and empires discarded along the way

**And God knows we've seen enough of this within Marxism. I love MIA but it does lead to a terrible habit of cutting and pasting quotes to support an argument while ignoring the overall context


No worries. I know the context but its irrelevant, primitivists don't want the technology that came with civilization either. Its not like they want the positives without the negatives. Jensen even acknowledges this, as he has chrons(sp, i dunno) disease and an end of civilization essentially garuntees an almost immediate death for him.I've more or less said this in the other thread, albeit with more words, but that (the attitude, not you) is just insanely stupid :blink:

[~Spectre]

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage. The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.

The knew what they were doing.

[fa2991]

http://www.lamebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/healthbeware21.png

[Angry Young Man]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-gnC5jmxwg

[The Douche]

No to both, and this is probably where the differences between us are. Put simply, I am not an American and I don't share that peculiarly American trait of elevating the Founding Fathers (or the constitution they produced) to near demi-god status. Its always very odd seeing Americans arguing over the wording of this or that amendment/article when most European nations have undergone 2-3 bouts of intense political upheaval/reform in the past century or two*. So, I can appreciate the Founding Fathers but don't feel the need to claim them as my own

The other problem is that, like all holy scriptures, anyone can extract a few quotes here and there to support whatever they want**. Now I don't like this because a) its a cheap way of scoring points that usually misrepresents the work in question, and b) the opposition can do the exact same as well. I'm fairly sure that the Tea Party movement, and others on the right, also make extensive use of Founding Father quotes. So who's collection is right? Does it matter?

Don't get me wrong, if you think that there's a purpose to this, and in America you are infinitely better placed than me to judge, then fine. Personally I'd be just as happy to accept the Founding Fathers as they were (ie, a collection of liberal theorists and rich land/slave owners) by admiring their progressive policies and condemning them when they're wrong. Not folding them into whatever political bracket suits today

*France, whose revolution occurred almost two decades after that of America, is on its fifth republic. And that's not including the various restoration regimes and empires discarded along the way

**And God knows we've seen enough of this within Marxism. I love MIA but it does lead to a terrible habit of cutting and pasting quotes to support an argument while ignoring the overall context

I've more or less said this in the other thread, albeit with more words, but that (the attitude, not you) is just insanely stupid :blink:

I want to be clear that I have no particular affinity for the founding fathers, and certainly not for the constitution (which will have to be scrapped in any socialist revolution, because it makes socialism illegal).

I just see propaganda value in appropriating them. Also, Thomas Paine doesn't meet the description of many of the others, as he was from the radical sect of american revolutionaries. He didn't own slaves and was one of the first american abolitionists. He was certainly what we could call an american jacobin, but strongly anti-authoritarian.

[NGNM85]

I always liked this one; "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. "-Thomas Jefferson

[Pavlov's House Party]

It seems kind of absurd to myself as a non-American that so many people take the words of these long dead, politically irrelevant capitalists almost as a religious dogma. The American republic was founded by these people to protect the interests of the capitalist class; their class. I don't see why we (or American comrades) should try to "reclaim" their words.

[The Douche]

It seems kind of absurd to myself as a non-American that so many people take the words of these long dead, politically irrelevant capitalists almost as a religious dogma. The American republic was founded by these people to protect the interests of the capitalist class; their class. I don't see why we (or American comrades) should try to "reclaim" their words.

You've never substantiated your claims with leaders of the revolutionary tradition from which you come?

There were legitimate radicals involved in the american revolution.

[Ocean Seal]

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
-George Washington

Ahem patriot act Ahem

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.


I have no doubt but that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate whenever the Government assumes a freer aspect and the laws favor a subdivision of Property.




I should not regret a fair and full trial of the entire abolition of capital punishment.

(if only we did that in the 18th century)



If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.




In no instance have... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people....The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

James Madison aka the dude who wrote the constitution