Thread:Blue in the Red Zone/@comment-681745-20150413085243/@comment-26279493-20150416212137

Hmm, I've certainly seen worse. The "rights gained from government" statement is WAY off the mark. Liberalism claims government gains rights or power from individuals, and depending on our take, it's governments job to guarantee those rights. Libertarianism, as liberalism on steroids is a complete miss too, IMO. I tend to see Libertarianism as a misunderstanding or misstatement of Liberal property rights, and advocacy of rights without corresponding responsibilities, that would lock in inequity if applied.

Myself, I think it all comes from a misunderstanding of early American Liberalism, and to some degree turning Smith's economic Liberalism into Capitalism. Cons tend to pretend that Jefferson was the champion of Liberalism based on his authorship of the "Declaration of Independance", and completely ignore Mason's contribution. Unfortunately, Mason retired after the Constitutional Convention, and didn't actively lead the anti-Federalist fight, so the whole Federalist v. AntiFederalist fight looks skewed. Jefferson and Madison were actually Federalists, and seem to have been complicit in hiding Mason's contributions from history. By ignoring Mason, and arguing against Jefferson, Cons commit two errors: The Preamble to the Declaration has no force of law, and most states had incorporated Mason's natural rights language (including the right to aquire property) into their State's Constitutions, and those natural rights were understood by most Convention members to be protected by the Constitution (for that matter, natural rights were the basis for the convention Delegates and State Legislatures to adopt the Constitution). An honest view of the Federalist AntiFederalist debate has to include Mason, and natural rights including access to the market economy. The States' Rights crowd, also has to admit that the Constitutional Convention rejected some of the States' Rights language and interpretation that was advocated by Mason.

Adam Smith really doesn't look like an advocate of Capitalism to me, or at least not the way it's practiced today. Freedom in the markets, yes, freedom to use government or wealth and power to restrict access, no.