Thomas Jefferson

Well done Timber1972!

The only problem I see with your outstanding meme and excellent follow-up post, is that I've found the snowflakes here on the flip can't read more than one, or maybe two sentences without their brains going numb, and their eyes glazing over.

In terms of equality, those same snowflakes completely misunderstand the concept of equality. They seem to think it means the govt is supposed to guarantee that results come out equal, such as income (e.g. the Bernster droning on and on about "income inequality.")

They fail to realize that an inequality of effort, usually means an inequality in the result, which in this example, is income.

They don't have the slightest ability to realize that people being equal, and free, means the playing field should be level, and individuals are responsible for themselves, not the govt. All the govt should do is ensure the playing field is level.

Okay, I better get off the soapbox... I've already written about 5 or 7 more sentences than a snowflake can make it through anyway.

Thomas Jefferson was a great writer and a radical pro-freedom thinker for his times, but his thinking had holes in it, especially on the issue of slavery. Some might call it a personal failing. I think it ran deeper than that. Jefferson clearly gave some thought to the issue. He predicted "eventual freedom" for black slaves while doing little to bring it about in his own time.

His prediction came true. However, I'm not sure even Jefferson would have predicted just how close the slavery issue came to tearing our country apart. Nor might have he predicted that true black-white equality under the law would have to wait until after 100 years of Jim Crow and the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Many would say that even in 2020, we are still not done with the work of racial equality in this country, and there is plenty of evidence to support that position.

When we talk about not speaking in terms of "our betters": Well, we shouldn't worship our Founding Fathers, either. They didn't create a perfect union, nor did they pretend to, as they allowed for the process of amending the Constitution.

We've been working on perfecting their vision ever since.

A full picture of equality in this country must account for everyone and I mean everyone.

Men and women, whites and blacks (and all other races), landowning and non-landowning, gay and straight.

It's taken over two centuries of political development for (most of) society to arrive at the simple conclusion that one's identity is no proper basis upon which to deny rights and equal treatment.

We're only talking political rights, not economics. But since you mentioned it: No, I've never promoted total "equality of outcome." Individual differences in talent and effort produce different economic outcomes.

However, I do think our society has become too economically unequal, and I support taking steps to curb the most egregious practices that have led us there. The simplest fix would be simply making the rich pay higher taxes the way they used to.

I cannot resist commenting on your memes because they are interesting.

If supporting a progressive tax system makes me a Leftist, then yes I am a Leftist.

The Leftist is convicted.

If you truly wanted the equality you claim you do KF, a flat tax would be what you advocate, not a progressive tax. That's a pretty simple thing to point out, which pretty much blows away your false argument in favor of equality.

I've pointed out before, and Timber1972 points it out as well here, that you are the master of misdirection. Your sentence opens with a very clear and direct meaning, from which you make a 90 or 180 degree turn, in the very same sentence. Timber is right to call you out on that, imo.

A flat tax is only favored by a small hard-right portion of the GOP and libertarians. Even Trump doesn't support it. Progressive taxation is here to stay.

In practical terms, a flat tax would not lead to equality but instead amount to a big handout to the wealthiest. Assuming it resulted in reduced revenue to our federal government, then it would create even more unfunded liabilities to be put on our national debt credit card.

No thanks.

Here's another quote from Jefferson on this subject.

Jefferson again predicted eventual freedom for slaves. But he apparently believed that whites and blacks, once freed, could not co-exist under the same government.

Today, that position would be recognized as white separatist. In Jefferson's time, it was mainstream.

Abolitionists (who existed as early as the 1700s) lived in a world that, top to bottom, disagreed with them. They still pressed their case. And eventually, the abolition of slavery came true. And today, we know that whites and blacks can co-exist in freedom under the same flag and the same laws.

It would not generally occur to me to use a phrase like "your betters." In that case I was rolling with and re-purposing a phrase you introduced to the conversation.

If I ever used that phrase, let me be clear I'm talking about those we have elected and entrusted with power. I do hold such individuals to a higher standard of conduct than typical civilians because their decisions affect more people.

And we all do, and we all should.

.

Thing is it hinges on the defintion of "men," which, of course, is a matter of perspective.

For Jefferson, in keeping with the culture and the times, this meant Protestant British, German or Scandinavian mean of means.

A tad short on a traditional aristrocratic class while swamped with men of the lowest of the lower classes (convicts and their descendents with a smattering of religious refugees) freshly versed in the fine art of overthrowing their overlords, Jefferson & Co were in a bit of a quandry. Getting kicked back to England (where charges of treason would gleefully greet them prior to their hanging) or killed wasn't exactly high on their itinerary, so should 'rights' be extended to men of in the nether wrungs of the heirarchy?

In a land where property ownership was a mere dead Native American away, amassing swaths of it and potential fortune were realistic possiblities. But were the traditional stations of these men a product of being broken by perpetual circumstance of the lack of opportunity variety, was sloth and a lack of ambition a consequence of their culture, or was it in their blood - an aspect of their lesser breeding? Was remaining low brow offal to always be their station?

Not eager for Revolution Pt II and looking to appease rural States with a higher proportion of human swill to landed gentry than the more prosperous States of manufacture & trade in the north, the Electoral College was a compromise to ease the fear of an imbalance of influence in a federated union and to prevent the lowly bred ignorant masses from selecting a President who would appeal to their more base instincts as opposed to reason. Charlatans of the stage whose celebrity was based on absolutely nothing worthier than the talents of performing circus baboons in clownpaint was not what they had in mind.

So thus equality was extended to those of unfavorable stock. This of course was not to include Catholics, Jews, Eastern & Southern Europeans, those of the Near East, Mohamadians, Hindus, Chinese, and of course, Africans, and last and most certainly least, American Indians. Like women and children, these were chattle, decreed by the Founders to be blessed by God to be under the stewardship of men to whom they were not equal to...

yadda yadda my tablet lost part, I'm tired and this will have to do.

Excuse my typos.