Ed Huntress writes:

We now have the thing that the Founders fought for.

Well, not exactly. The fighting, the rebellion, was justified by the
Declaration of Independence which said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

What we have today, much modified by time and history, is a version of
the thing that the Founders *bickered over* at great length a decade
or so later, the result of which was that property superceded liberty,
probably life and the pursuit of happiness, too. That property should
supercede liberty was (and is) *not* self-evident and it took a
prolonged bun fight to agree on the original constitutional text.
That bun fight is why the bill of rights had to be added later. You
probably know more than I do about controversy around the first 10
ammendments but they still don't revert the constitution to what "the
Founders *fought* for".

(Don't think I'm attacking you personally, Ed, just because I don't
agree with you. Yours is one of the few voices here that's
well-informed and sane, :-)

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 28 Feb 2015 02:57:58 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

We now have the thing that the Founders fought for.

Well, not exactly. The fighting, the rebellion, was justified by the
Declaration of Independence which said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

What we have today, much modified by time and history, is a version of
the thing that the Founders *bickered over* at great length a decade
or so later, the result of which was that property superceded liberty,
probably life and the pursuit of happiness, too. That property should
supercede liberty was (and is) *not* self-evident and it took a
prolonged bun fight to agree on the original constitutional text.
That bun fight is why the bill of rights had to be added later. You
probably know more than I do about controversy around the first 10
ammendments but they still don't revert the constitution to what "the
Founders *fought* for".


Well, I take your point. The role of property in the philosophies of
the founders was somewhat varied.


(Don't think I'm attacking you personally, Ed, just because I don't
agree with you. Yours is one of the few voices here that's
well-informed and sane, :-)

I don't take it at all personally, Mike. It's refreshing to talk
seriously about these things with someone who thinks them through.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:47:07 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On 28 Feb 2015 02:57:58 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

We now have the thing that the Founders fought for.

Well, not exactly. The fighting, the rebellion, was justified by the
Declaration of Independence which said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

What we have today, much modified by time and history, is a version of
the thing that the Founders *bickered over* at great length a decade
or so later, the result of which was that property superceded liberty,
probably life and the pursuit of happiness, too. That property should
supercede liberty was (and is) *not* self-evident and it took a
prolonged bun fight to agree on the original constitutional text.
That bun fight is why the bill of rights had to be added later. You
probably know more than I do about controversy around the first 10
ammendments but they still don't revert the constitution to what "the
Founders *fought* for".


Well, I take your point. The role of property in the philosophies of
the founders was somewhat varied.


(Don't think I'm attacking you personally, Ed, just because I don't
agree with you. Yours is one of the few voices here that's
well-informed and sane, :-)

I don't take it at all personally, Mike. It's refreshing to talk
seriously about these things with someone who thinks them through.

Gee. Do you mean that "logic", " Logical" and "think for yourself" are
not heresies?
:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 12:24:42 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:47:07 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On 28 Feb 2015 02:57:58 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

We now have the thing that the Founders fought for.

Well, not exactly. The fighting, the rebellion, was justified by the
Declaration of Independence which said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.

What we have today, much modified by time and history, is a version of
the thing that the Founders *bickered over* at great length a decade
or so later, the result of which was that property superceded liberty,
probably life and the pursuit of happiness, too. That property should
supercede liberty was (and is) *not* self-evident and it took a
prolonged bun fight to agree on the original constitutional text.
That bun fight is why the bill of rights had to be added later. You
probably know more than I do about controversy around the first 10
ammendments but they still don't revert the constitution to what "the
Founders *fought* for".


Well, I take your point. The role of property in the philosophies of
the founders was somewhat varied.


(Don't think I'm attacking you personally, Ed, just because I don't
agree with you. Yours is one of the few voices here that's
well-informed and sane, :-)

I don't take it at all personally, Mike. It's refreshing to talk
seriously about these things with someone who thinks them through.

Gee. Do you mean that "logic", " Logical" and "think for yourself" are
not heresies?
:-)

They are for the ideologues. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress