What is prozac used for. Prozac use in dogs. Does prozac make you gain weight….

And you sir, how would you like your piece of the pie?

I used to cringe when my dad would talk about America's golden years being past, but it is true. We've peaked.

The greatest generation wasn't so great in context to their ancestors, but they just happen to be the last of those generations before we crested that hill.

Yeah, we all know that modern politicians will do anything to oppress the many to benefit the few, but seriously, does anyone really believe in the "memory" of the "founders" and "patriots", many of whom paid lip service to ideas of liberty and justice, yet were slaveowners themselves, not the least of which was George Mason himself?

If we really want to understand the Fourth of July, I highly recommend reading a speech written by a real libertarian, Frederick Douglass, entitled "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"

Douglass gave his speech on July 5, 1852, at Corinthian Hall in Rochester, N.Y., where his powerful words rang out. "What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?"

Indeed, Douglass would claim that the nation is "your nation", the fathers "your fathers." The nation's story is taught in "your common schools, narrated at your firesides, unfolded from your pulpits."

Below is a full passage:

"I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony."

So, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the "founders" were noble people, and somehow different from modern politicians.

They were savage hypocrites who talked and wrote about freedom and liberty, but only as it pertained to them and people like them, while grossly denying it to others.

Suddenly, their memory isn't so nice after all, is it?

–Pingry

I understand your thoughts, and I understand those of Fredrick Douglass; I do not only understand them but I emphathize as well.

I too chafe at what I know is privilege and not freedom for you and I. I want freedom as sincerely as did Fredrick Douglass.

That being said there are two factors that we must take into consideration before condemning the founding fathers.

First is the fact that we all do the best we can with the wisdom we have at any given moment. The founding fathers acted the best that they could given the time, place, past, mores, and conventional wisdom that they had. In retrospect it is easy to condemn them; but, I suggest perhaps not justified. They set in place, codified the law, that led to the freedom for all; and, they could easily have ignored those principles, or made them specific to a race, instead of saying "all men are created equal".

I believe that if you sit back and think on it, you will realize that they knew what they were doing and knew that it would take time to make it all happen.

The second thing we must consider is though Fredrick Douglass was a formidible intellect, he too was limited in his concepts by his time, place, and education.

Fredrick Douglass had no real idea or understanding of how far his life, customs, mores, ideals, goals, and cultural outlook had changed from those of the Africans who remained in Africa.

So, in effect he was speaking no more than inflamatory rhetoric in pursuit of a goal. It does not matter that the goal was worthy and noble, he still spoke from his own personal bubble.

Why do you say "the founding fathers"?

Shouldn't you be saying, "Your founding fathers".

Of course everyone is limited in concepts of time, place, and education, because after all, the crux of spontaneous order is that we're incredibly limited in our knowledge and experience, and the culture in which we are socialized.

So, to say that Frederick Douglass, like the founding fathers, was "limited in his concepts by his time, place, and education" is an absolutely meaningless statement, because every single person who walked this earth has been.

I, for one, would not look down upon the "founders" and "patriots" like, say, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, George Mason, etc. if they chose not to be slaveowners, even in the context of a society that thought that owning other people for dirt cheap labor was acceptable.

In fact, these men knew what they were doing was not only morally reprehensible, but entirely against everything which they were fighting for, and yet they still held these people as slaves!

To be clear, they were hypocrites who talked a big game about liberty and justice, but were abject failures because they lacked the courage to follow their passionate convictions. They were pure cowards, and nothing better.

So, they are no different than most modern politicians of every stripe, in every country, who play the same game.

–Pingry

However, the form of government that was laid down by these men set the stage for the most dynamic, and freest civilization the world has ever known.

Slavery existed at one time under this system, women couldn't vote, certain prejudices were tolerated or even codified. But in the light of the Constitution, we are all free and equal in the eyes of the law, and those things could not stand.

Thus the slave owning, greedy power seekers of our founding put in to motion a system of government that would free their slaves, empower their wives, etc.

The down side is that the culmination of so much freedom coincided with a level of affluence that our national character could not withstand.

Ray Gardner,

I agree with you when you wrote that "the form of government that was laid down by these men set the stage for the most dynamic, and freest civilization the world has ever known."

But I passionately hate this romantic notion regarding the founders of this country, purported by many libertarians and conservatives, as somehow being noble and good, and different from modern politicians, when in fact, many of them were hypocritical slaveholders.

To debunk this nonsense about these people as somehow being outstanding American citizens, I will emphasize my last post for the other readers to be perfectly clear:

"…these men knew what they were doing was not only morally reprehensible, but entirely against everything which they were fighting for, and yet they still held these people as slaves!

To be clear, they were hypocrites who talked a big game about liberty and justice, but were abject failures because they lacked the courage to follow their passionate convictions. They were pure cowards, and nothing better."

That's my beef…….that so many libertarians and conservatives look up to these cowards as somehow superior and worthy of emulation, when they failed at following up on even the most basic tenets of their writings and speeches.

In fact, had they not enslaved people, then yes, I probably would be exalting the things they wrote about too, but unlike many other libertarians, I see them for the complete cowards they were.

I mean, how can a man think, write, speak and fight for liberty and justice all day from the comforts of his home while looking out the window as the people he "owns", his slaves, are being forced to work against their will.

Really, let's stop this foolishness about the "founders" being so great and "better" than today's politicians, and get a proper perspective of history here.

–Pingry

The reality of politics is that idealists are often lauded, but action is devoted to selfish purpose.

For elucidating the ideals we strive for, we can thank a very few for setting them to words.

The rest is up to us.

As a utopian anarchist I think our founding fathers all erred by establishing a government at all. By it's very nature government enslaves everyone with whom it comes in contact.

Still, I'm awfully glad to live in America. And I'm perfectly content to celebrate my "freedom" each July 4th, especially in light of the fact that I probably won't have much freedom to celebrate in the future.

As a utopian anarchist I think our founding fathers all erred by establishing a government at all. By it's very nature government enslaves everyone with whom it comes in contact.

Still, I'm awfully glad to live in America. And I'm perfectly content to celebrate my "freedom" each July 4th, especially in light of the fact that I probably won't have much freedom to celebrate in the future.

Bwahahahahaha! The U.S.A. was as slow as the rest of the Western nations to do all those things. Heck! The U.S.A. was one of the last Wesern nations to formally illegalise slavery and it was one of the main reasons for some of the States to separate. Puhhh-leeeease!

Really, get a grip and act in a logical fashion so you don't bring down the rest of the room. Really, you're being childish.

I said myself that these men were selfish politicians who were merely seeking power. But you put my name at the top of your screed and then quote other posters.

Bad form man.

More to the point, through much consternation, backbiting, cheating, and even out and out warfare, these not so noble men came up with a Constitution that centered on the limitation of government, and the individual rights of men.

And that really is the crux of the matter. Those who look to men instead of ideas are the same people that identify themselves first as a Democrat or a Republican or even a libertarian. They forget the supposed ideals that these groups are supposed to be representing and promoting, and fall into the "my team is better" mentality.

Obviously you are acting more on emotion than logic, and you really should find a hobby that does not require the use of computers, firearms or alcohol.

"The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property…" John Locke.

The founders had clearly read Locke, and presumeably understood him, and so the ommission seems deliberate. Maybe not. Maybe they were just trying to be poetic. If so, it was a huge mistake.

"To be clear, they were hypocrites who talked a big game about liberty and justice, but were abject failures because they lacked the courage to follow their passionate convictions. They were pure cowards, and nothing better."

John Adams, Alexander Hamilton?

It's only going to hurt for a little while. Soon, you will go into shock, and then eventually die.

Quit being such a crybaby.

A utopian anarchist… that's a tough one. You sort of need everyone to be that, or it won't work.

Also, to get it off the ground, don't you sort of need some kind of organization? Like for a meeting?