15 votes

My liberal friend just sent me this article:


Typical liberals. We are arguing about principles, while they are arguing about a typo. "See, there was a DASH here instead of a period, that means I win!!"

Kill me.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ChristianAnarchist's picture

A period or a comma really

A period or a comma really doesn't change the basic premise much. Jefferson made it clear that Rights come from the Creator... As such they would certainly trump any man-created "government"...

Clearly if you read my post I

Clearly if you read my post I am not very good with grammar and writing, but who cares?

Does it seriously matter, with a period or a comma it must be taken in the same context since there is no other subject matter for a second sentence to be referring to except the first. Therefore the meaning is the same. And if you want to say it isn't then you will have to show how screwed up the English language is.

But regardless, it means that the government is there to protect the rights and freedom of the people (like the liberals want it to say). But it does not state that the government has to be big. And you would also have to conclude that any government that hinders rights and freedoms is what is being referred to towards the end when it gives people the right to abolish that government.

So the goverment is there to protect rights and freedoms (duh why else would we want it there), but it cannot do so by restricting them so the liberals loose either way. Its only job is to stop those that hinder a right or threaten freedom, not make laws about what is a right and its limits or imprison you to protect your freedom.

This whole thing will just be picked up as some distraction from something more important.

Besides it says it gets its power from the consent of the governed. Therefore if I do not consent then how do they have power over me? They don't.

Consider the source, what would you expect from Princeton ?

Danielle Allen, a professor at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, and you expected a reasoned, studied or rational perspective. She is a trustee in a University system to cheats students and robs the nation.

That was alot about nothing

Sorry, but it really wasn't worth reading. I couldn't give a rats ass about the Declaration of Independence. I couldn't give a rats ass about the founding fathers political views.

I feel bad for the author. She really thinks an entire "political"(economic more like) hinges on whether or not the founding fathers " wanted to protect freedoms, instead of get out of their way". What does that even mean?


Michael Nystrom's picture


Raise their ugly head.

The Daily Paul continues to exist only with your support. Please contribute to the the DP's Summer 2014 Fundraiser.

Matters Not to Me

Lawyers will interpret the darn thing any way they want to.

As if a comma, or an interpretation of some document of which I was no party to, somehow binds me to the result of that interpretation.

My liberty is not contingent upon anyone else's acknowledgement of that liberty, written or otherwise, with any number of commas perfectly placed or not.

Factions Speak Louder Than Words


"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Want To Get Technical?

There is a typo in the title which compelled me not to want to read it. The typo I found was the word "typo". See, the person who wrote this typed the word "typo" assuming in the late 1700's there was such thing as typo's. Last I checked, the Declaration Of Independence was hand written, therefor proving that the typo did not exist during that time period or at least was not used for the very document that is being accused of having a typo.

Since the typo has now been proven to historically not exist in the late 1700's, one now has to question if any of the claims the author has made is based on facts at all.

For example, this line at the end of the article, which uses the words "In fact":

"In fact, they embraced a strong government as being necessary to protect the freedoms that they fought for. In other words, the Founders were liberals."

I find it funny that somebody is claiming that the founders of this country were liberals, as if it wasn't true. Yes, they were indeed liberals (most of them were, some were statists). They were John Locke and Adam Smith liberals. Liberalism once meant freedom of the individual. Liberalism once meant freedom of life, liberty and property from government regulation and control. Liberalism once meant something.

The Treubig Show on Daily Paul Radio
*NEW* Spread Liberty with our free speech!


That makes the argument that the fundamental purpose of government in a Just society is to protect Individual Rights.

Therefore the founders were liberals, CLASSICAL liberals.

This is what Tom Woods calls "Critics bashing arguments we did not make.". In plain point, they are making a straw-man argument(Which is what they accuse libertarians of doing in the comments).

Does anyone else enjoy the "libertarians are buddies with right-wingers" arguments. Libertarians(big L and small l alike) are building coalitions with both right AND left.My favorite example is Tenth Amendment Center being invited into the OffNow Coalition, where TAC is aligned with Greenpeace.

Some of these commenters are so wedded to the left-right paradigm, that they never consider ANYTHING other than "Red Team" or "Blue Team".

One poster on that site made a comment asking when have liberals killed.

Well...my good sir...excluding WWI,WWII,Korea,Vietnam, Supporting the Taliban(We now know the Carter Administration approved assistance that began BEFORE CIA puppet Congressman Charlie Wilson advocated for support),the Iraq Sanctions/No Fly Zone(Madeleine Albright thought the 1 million dead children which resulted was worth it), and Bosnia(Because al-qeada's eastern european allies in the "Kosovo Liberation Army" and Albanian Drug Cartels needed our help); There is the continuation of the Drug War and the recent stage of the War OF Terror(because you cannot declare war ON a tactic).

But my favorite comment by a mile(italicized replies mine):

"Executive ActionThe Era o the Unitary Executive is over, it is the Era of Executive Action! bypasses the company-owned conservative congressmen and womenBecause Powerful corporations have no influence in the White House silly! Obama got rid of them all. and actually gets things doneBecause anything the President wants done needs doing like helping al-qaeda take over Syria!. The political right has tried all it can to prevent the President from doing the jobWhy won't the opposition party just let us do what we want! he was elected to do, and when he finally gets around to it, the Right, and yourself, call it AuthoritarianHe does want he believes needs doing, which includes bypassing the legislature, based only the recommendations of those advisers he trusts.Now when Bush did this, he was Tyrant, but MY GUY would NEVER do that. "

The US Government is in no way tyrannical, even if it claims the right to take your property(Taxation, Asset Forfeiture,Eminent Domain),barge into you home or business without a warrant(No Knock Raids),Assault you(Police brutality),kidnap you and hold you without trial(NDAA), monitor ALL communications you make(Domestic Surveillance), and even kill you with the approval of a modern day "Star Chamber"(FISA COURTS + Drones).

Now sit back and relax, for your tax rebate will be here any day now.

And always remember, your Government loves you.

Go back to sleep.

Cyril's picture

A 160 yr old unanswered question to have any statist shut up

A 160 yr old unanswered question to have any statist shut up OR make a fool of him/herself :


You're welcome. :)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

What is section G063?

When I click your link it takes me only to the table of contents. Thanks.

Cyril's picture

Odd. It seems like your browser is pulling your leg.

Odd. It seems like your browser is pulling your leg.

Anyway, quoting what I usually link to, on that matter:

(or here, too : http://www.laissez-faire.me/Liberty)

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered :

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?

Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


are looking for a benevolent dictator who randomly changes the law on the whim of the liberals.

Libertarians subscribe to the

Libertarians subscribe to the non-agression principle. They are not beholden to any piece of paper.

Correct. Someone did their

Correct. Someone did their homework.

Speak for yourself...

As a Libertarian, I believe in the constitution. As far as non-aggression, that's debatable but preferable.

The NAP opposes the idea of

The NAP opposes the idea of the -initiation- of aggression, but supports self-defense. So, what about that would you debate?

Just kill me - indeed.

I'm speechless at the point of the whole article, and then the comments !

Talk about a disconnect with reality.


ugh, the comments.

Who knew that libertarianism (protecting people's ability to freely live their lives) would get people SOOOOOOOO pissed off?


Statist get mad when you point out to people that they have the right to their own life, property and prosperity. Statist look for and coddle subservient slaves who have no rights. So they rightfully get mad when someone points out the error of depending on someone or something for your rights.

I absolutely abhor statist. Most moronic bunch of idiots to ever walk the earth.