I am in an argument in another forum over James Madison.

[silverhandorder]

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=83339

I have to admit I don't know what I am arguing about. My only leg that I am standing on in this argument is that I know if what the OP is saying is true then dems and Obama would use it today.

My interretation of the quote is that he was talking about intrest as a faction trying to stifle another faction through common means of oppresion.

[silverhandorder]

Anyone? Just read the OP and tell me if you agree or disagree, that would go a long ways.

[I Am Weasel]

interesting, but I'm not the person who could give a proper answer one way or another

[mrkurtz]

http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=83339

I have to admit I don't know what I am arguing about. My only leg that I am standing on in this argument is that I know if what the OP is saying is true then dems and Obama would use it today.

My interretation of the quote is that he was talking about intrest as a faction trying to stifle another faction through common means of oppresion.

Something to remember; the anti-Federalists were mostly responsible for the Bill of Rights.

At any rate, you are approaching it from the correct angle. To further quote Fed 10: "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires" The Libertarian angle should be one that, under all circumstances, protect liberty. Yes, the free market is as close to an ideal market, but the United States itself is bound within its Constitution to protect liberty.

Attack the OP on only two points:
1) "Maybe the founding fathers weren't quite as libertarian"... By definition, "libertatians" are suppose to be defending liberty... there is nothing in Fed 10 that suggests otherwise. If we're talking about the modern Barr-ized LP, then that's a different story and don't bother debating that unwinnable angle.

2) "Papers seem to echo a much more moderate tone than the more extreme views of people like Ron Paul." RP had two messages that are relevant to this discussion: a) the depression-era government intervention exacerbated and lengthened the pain, b) the deviation from "gold and silver" to our current fiat and hyperinflation bound currency, though giving power via Congress, is by his opinion unconstitutional. Free markets does not mean the absence of policing property rights and the other necessary elements of "fair exchange". Fed 10 hints at an organizational collusion, and RP would probably agree that this is considered criminal since it would indirectly affect one's personal property rights.

By the way, the OP isn't entirely wrong either... it's his analysis of RP followers and RP's positions that are a bit off.

[TastyWheat]

I'm sure the meaning isn't quite so clear as we think it is. Obviously their grammar and usage of words was way different then than it is now. The word "regulation" does raise a few alarms because we're so anti-regulation. However, it wasn't uncommon for them to use the term "regulate" to mean "to make regular or ensure the smooth flow of". So like when you regulate your digestive system you're trying to fix the things that keep it from running smoothly. So Madison may actually mean that it's important to insure freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas so that no single "faction" can take control of the rest.

To put that quote in perspective you'd probably have to read the entire Federalist #10 and I'm just too tired to read it.

[nate895]

The Federalist can't be used because they only affected the Constitutional debate inside New York City. Nowhere else were they able to be read before that state's convention, and even in New York they weren't widely circulated at the time. Another point is The Federalist contradict each other on a regular basis.