Some of the Founders Socialists?

[Griffith]

Some of the Founders and their ideas concerning property rights seem downright opposed to the classical liberal label they're so often associated with in the Paul movement and more in line with Socialism. They have plenty of strong quotes supporting Liberty and natural, individual rights but quotes like these just downright support modern-day leftists and Socalists ideas.

All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.

 

[robert68]

Interesting.

 

[PierzStyx]

Isolated quotes prove nothing. Look at the vast body of their works, and their actions. You tell me, all taken into account, do you really think they were socialists?

 

[Acala]

Some of the Founders and their ideas concerning property rights seem downright opposed to the classical liberal label they're so often associated with in the Paul movement and more in line with Socialism. They have plenty of strong quotes supporting Liberty and natural, individual rights but quotes like these just downright support modern-day leftists and Socalists ideas.

I disagree with the Franklin quote and it does smack of socialism. But I agree with Jefferson. Rights in real property are a creation of man by consensus. Human beings lived quite nicely for most of their history without any rights in real property. It was the evils of agriculture that made it necessary to define property rights. And for you IP warriors out there, I would like to hear an explanation of how inscribing imaginary lines on the face of the earth to define property is any different in theory than inscribing imaginary lines around intellectual innovation to define property rights.

 

[erowe1]

I disagree with the Franklin quote and it does smack of socialism. But I agree with Jefferson. Rights in real property are a creation of man by consensus. Human beings lived quite nicely for most of their history without any rights in real property. It was the evils of agriculture that made it necessary to define property rights. And for you IP warriors out there, I would like to hear an explanation of how inscribing imaginary lines on the face of the earth to define property is any different in theory than inscribing imaginary lines around intellectual innovation to define property rights.

The thing about that Jefferson quote is that he doesn't just limit it to land, but he also includes movable property.

 

[Katt]

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" Thomas Jefferson

This doesn't sound like a socialist.

 

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Thomas Paine from my understanding, was a socialist to a degree.

 

[jmdrake]

You know what's funny? Everytime someone says something slightly out of line with RPF political correctness that person is called a "socialist" or a "statist". Who cares about the freaking labels? Acala has a very good point about agriculture. The importance of property rights to a civilization depend largely on how production is accomplished. For example, Tom Woods in a recent speech talked about how some Indian tribes had defined property rights for hunting grounds. Fine and dandy. But that didn't work too good for those tribes that depended on migratory animals like buffalo. Are you going to leave someone behind to guard your main hunting ground and keep some other tribe from coming in and hunting rabbits while the rest of you go after the buffalo?

There is a reason why "possession is 9/10ths of the law". I'm more inclined to use force to protect you from someone else coming in and taking your property than I am to use force to go and take your property back from someone else. In one case I'm defending your person. In the other I'm defending your property. The problem with IP is how do you possess an idea? Someone in one of the recent IP threads gave the scenario of how we would be willing to "stand with rifle in hand" to protect an author from being "enslaved". Well and good. The anti-IP folks (and I'm not quite in that crowd) aren't saying anyone should be forced to write or sing or produce anything. The question is, however, how do you actually "protect" someone's IP "right" once the author is no longer in sole physical of it? The only way to do that is to violate the physical property right of someone else. You have to move from defense to offense. I do not believe that property rights are the foundation for liberty. They are a part of liberty no doubt, but not the foundation.

 

[July]

When you study the history of classical liberalism, you can see where influential figures and philosophers have had criticism and disagreements with each other on certain points. Some ended up veering off in very different directions, or emphasizing some points to the determent of others, or further expounding on new points. Philosophy isn't a dogmatic progression, all in a single straight line. You can see where Ron Paul's philosophy comes from various influences and sources, not all one single person or dogma. There's lot of Jefferson in there, but not only that.

There were clearly differences in opinion amongst the Founders too. We've chosen to draw from some of the ideas of certain Founders, in the classical liberal tradition...but that is not to say those were the only ideas represented by all of the Founders or early American historical figures. But if you are trying to suggest that there is some kind of hypocrisy, because something in particular Jefferson said wasn't 100% in line with Ron Paul, and that somehow debunks the idea that there was any sort of classical liberal tradition present in America--I disagree.

 

[July]

Isolated quotes prove nothing. Look at the vast body of their works, and their actions. You tell me, all taken into account, do you really think they were socialists?

I agree, it can be very misleading to pull random quotes out of context, without taking a person's full body of work into account...in general. We've seen that with Ron Paul plenty enough. For example that quote on global currency, or his quotes on China, that some people use to imply he is a globalist. Well, for one thing, you can make that case that he is indeed not a protectionist, and does not fear the idea of global free trade, commerce, and interaction. But that's a far cry from being in line with someone like Hillary Clinton or Obama, and their particular brand of "globalism".

You can find similar concepts presented in the works of both Strauss and Rothbard. Does that make Rothbard a neoconservative? Or Strauss a libertarian? They both were reacting to a similar problem and starting premise--but coming to different conclusions, and different solutions. Like Rothbard, Strauss rejected scientism, criticized relativists, and talked about natural law....but he had a very different take on it, and on what to replace it with.

You can see this pattern everywhere in philosophy.

Dostoyevsky vs. Nietzsche--both observing similar problem, commenting on and reacting to existential crisis. Very different conclusions.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I disagree with the Franklin quote and it does smack of socialism. But I agree with Jefferson. Rights in real property are a creation of man by consensus. Human beings lived quite nicely for most of their history without any rights in real property. It was the evils of agriculture that made it necessary to define property rights. And for you IP warriors out there, I would like to hear an explanation of how inscribing imaginary lines on the face of the earth to define property is any different in theory than inscribing imaginary lines around intellectual innovation to define property rights.

This has already been explained numerous times. What, specifically, have you not understood?