I do agree with L.W.M. that it's a neat trick to claim Jefferson as the paterfamilias of these so-called libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, rather like the one that LDS geneologists pull on their unsuspecting ancestors. It's vile, as vile as claiming that Stalin was my ancestor.

Bucky1 seems to believe it, though, and has marshalled his arguments. The problem, as I said on an earlier thread, is that his arguments lack respect not only for the history of ideas, but also for the history of blood and suffering. Would he blame the Homestead strike or Harry Bennett on the government? It would seem so, yes. Would he deny that Wal*Mart was as great a threat to liberty as the FDA? I suspect he would. Can he smell the stench which, when the wind is just right, reaches us from Paul Craig Roberts? Apparently not.

These are the weaknesses in his argument. Not rhetorical weaknesses to be sure, but weaknesses nevertheless. The have the quality of being assembled for an unstated purpose, and hammered together out of the sight of real events. I don't think that they'll carry the day, here or elsewhere, regardless of L.W.M.'s supposed personal faults.

All valid points. From my perspective, no. 2 seems the strongest. Minority parties do make unpopular ideas or ideologies more accessible to the public earlier in their evolution than they might be when espoused by individuals alone. On the other hand, they're also much more likely to devolve into cant, and incestuous code-speak which are instinctively shunned by the majority.

On the whole, I'm not sure which of us is right, but as the good collectivist that I am, I'm not so much worried about the thesis and antithesis part of our political dialogue as I am the synthesis.

1) Moses was a conservative.

2) After the old Irish saying, "Is this fight personal, or can anyone join in?" I'm with L.W.M. He's passionate, but he never argues just to win. He thinks he's an anarchist. (I think he's a liberal.)

I go on the porch to wee.

A Oh happy farmer turns cranky.

I no want to clash with a buck.

A good Earth pours forth foods.

I gonna delicately endure deer.

The cute buck is named wiggles.

Two twinkling ears wiggle cute.

A wild and wigglewee at farmer?

I kinda hear deer heave a snot?

So, a nicname buck Wiggle Tail?

El Cid and others: A lot of the confusion can be made sense of simply by reading the entries on them in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas:

http://etext.virginia.edu/DicHist/dict.html

One important thing that emerges from this history is that the American meanining of liberalism is not an anomaly. British liberalism developed along these same lines, well ahead of us Yanks, with the emergence of the "New Liberals" in the 1870s. This indicates a broad intellectual coherence to American liberalism, against claims to the contrary.

Being the history of ideas and all, it doesn't explain how the British Liberal Party eventually fragmented, and the Labour Caucus emerged as the Labour Party, stressing different intellectual roots, which is why British "liberalism" today has reverted back to its more pre-1870 sense.

Also relevant, but not included in the DHI article, is the Italian-born tradition of liberal socialism, whose pioneering theorist was Carlo Rosselli:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rosselli

A good, short description--and longer contextualization--is available here:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=384

The essence:

LIBERAL SOCIALISM is the most original contribution Italy has made to the culture of the non-Marxist left. Its origins date back to the end of the nineteenth century, during the debates over the doctrinal legacy of the socialist movement; its formulation and militant organization began under Rosselli's leadership in the thirties, in the course of the struggle against both fascism and state planning (Soviet as well as fascist); its most mature development took place in the second half of the forties in the Action Party (Partito d'Azione)-a party, as Palmiro Togliatti, chief secretary of the Italian Communist Party, said, that was made up of "generals without an army." The Action Party did not reach the necessary minimum in the first democratic election (1946) and disappeared as a party just when party politics re-emerged in Italy. However, liberal socialism did not depend on the party for its identity and significance. Rather, its ethical and political vision was based on a few clear beliefs: that modern democracy is an ongoing project that can never finally be achieved; that it rests on two equally important principles, liberty and equality; that these two are forever in tension; and that this tension is vital to democratic health. Liberty and equality are not "natural" rights; to live with their tension requires a disenchanted view of human life, but this disenchantment is consistent with democracy. As Bobbio put it, "human beings are not at all born free and equal," but they can become free and equal through their struggle against the specific conditions in which they live. To do this, they must create a political order that allows them to sustain their struggle peacefully.

William writes:

I do agree with L.W.M. that it's a neat trick to claim Jefferson as the paterfamilias of these so-called libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, rather like the one that LDS geneologists pull on their unsuspecting ancestors. It's vile, as vile as claiming that Stalin was my ancestor.

Bucky1 seems to believe it, though, and has marshalled his arguments. The problem, as I said on an earlier thread, is that his arguments lack respect not only for the history of ideas, but also for the history of blood and suffering. Would he blame the Homestead strike or Harry Bennett on the government? It would seem so, yes. Would he deny that Wal*Mart was as great a threat to liberty as the FDA? I suspect he would. Can he smell the stench which, when the wind is just right, reaches us from Paul Craig Roberts? Apparently not.

These are the weaknesses in his argument. Not rhetorical weaknesses to be sure, but weaknesses nevertheless. The have the quality of being assembled for an unstated purpose, and hammered together out of the sight of real events. I don't think that they'll carry the day, here or elsewhere, regardless of L.W.M.'s supposed personal faults.

What fabulous use of language that first paragraph is. I do applaud your skill. You allow your reader to believe that somehow you know that "these so-called libertarians" either do not really honor Jefferson, or more likely; Jefferson was not all that great. I take it that Thomas Jefferson is vile, as vile as Stalin to you; at least that is what I am thinking now from your words. Please correct any misreading on my part; I always want clarification from those who write as well (and calmly) as yourself.

I see absolutely no disregard for history or fact. Perhaps you could shed some light on this mysterious assertion of yours. I read H. Zinn's history all the time (and I have been known to talk others into reading it), and I see no contradictions at all. Can you be specific? I know that is hard; seems no one here can pick an example and talk it through.

You claim weakness in my argument; and I am sure you will share some with me. In fact, it would be enjoyable to explore these weaknesses (as you see them) in a little more depth than the typical "sound-bite" talk that passes for debate on this comment section of Glenn's blog.

However, you did ask about Walmart. I see no problem, until they break government laws to play a crooked game. They have certainly done that; e.g.,they have bribed local officials to abuse zoning ordinances. I would prefer no zoning ordinances, but until that happens I want all to be law abiding. What did you expect me to say?

I am also a tad unclear about what you think may or may not "carry the day". I certainly am no great debater. The idea of freedom will win out, or not, according to the persuasion from those better and younger than I. The only reason that I have written more than the post or two a week as I did on the old blog, is because of the attacks on me. But hey, I have a little time this summer.

If you think besting "bucky1" will prove that the Democratic Party believes in freedom like libertarians do; you will awaken someday to find it just is not so.