Comment: OK

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The key phrase in... (see in situ)

OK

I'll give it a shot (though it's probably spitting in the wind).

The assertion that it is the *objective* of the institution of government to secure rights is not an assertion of the effectiveness of that course of action, nor an indication of advocacy. When Jefferson wrote that governments are instituted by men to secure their unalienable rights, he did not say that course of action would work. That very well may be why they do it. It doesn't seem to work so well, so far.

Second, Jefferson did not support the creation of a limited government with the power to tax. Jefferson was among the anti-federalists. He opposed the ratification of the Constitution and would have no part in that ratification. But it is not entirely clear to me if you're still viewing the Constitution as among the founding documents. Nor is it clear what moral principles you have in mind. Jefferson was nominally supportive of the Articles of Confederation which could be said to create a government. However, the government created by the Articles of Confederation did not permit taxation or the supposed enforcement of moral principles.

In fact, the Constitution has nothing to do with enforcement of moral principles. That is just something you seem to be projecting on it due to later amendments---which were not intended to enforce moral principles, except they be enforced on the tyranny created by the document itself.

The Declaration can be said to contain moral principles, but that is not the same thing as the Constitution.

Perhaps it could be said that Jefferson supported limited government, but only if it was limited to not collect taxes by force. The Constitution has this as its only real aim and, thereby, fails Jefferson's notion of adequate limitation.

Anyway, I've answered your first question. This is why Jefferson was called an anarchist at the time. This is why I think he can be called an anarchist now. Of course, he was a rational anarchist and with the system in place became something of a tyrant as president under it. We may never know how Ron Paul would have done. Better I'll guess. And there's still 2016. :)

Your suggestion that moral principles led to the abolition of slavery, the evil of voting and such things is somewhat laughable. Slavery is not over. The evil of voting to feel like a master in the system of slavery (for women or anyone else) is not moral. The Civil Rights movement was mostly a movement. (It might as well be flushed.)