[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You really seemed to have missed the point, but to answer your question - I doubt Alexander Hamilton would have much of a problem with things like a large military budget, large-scale government investment in infrastructure, and closed borders and Thomas Paine certainly would've supported universal healthcare.

But the reason why your post didn't make any sense was because in the country that the "founding fathers created" there wasn't an infestation of socialists merely because there was no infestation of capitalists at the time. Socialism - being a reaction to capitalism - couldn't and didn't exist in the late 18th century. The country that the founding fathers lived in was half mercantile/half agrarian.

[/QUOTE] Capitalism is compatible with the principles established in the founding documents of this country, whereas socialism is not.[/QUOTE] Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements? [/QUOTE] The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Is it even possible for you to not make vapid statements? [/QUOTE] The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Socialism exists on the (false) assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless, his only purpose is to be sacrificed for the collective, and that he should only concern himself with the pursuit of someone else's happiness rather than his own. Socialism is utterly antithetical to the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. Please explain how I am wrong.[/QUOTE] It must be easy to argue something when you aren't restrained by reality.

[/QUOTE] Please explain what is unrealistic about what I am saying. Please substantiate your claims, as I have substantiated my own.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The states declared independence on the grounds that each individual has a right to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.[/QUOTE]haha

you mean except if youre black and non-christian?

[/QUOTE] The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech. Obviously many of the founders were hypocrites and inconsistent with their principles with regards to slavery/racism. That has no bearing on the validity of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence.

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech. Obviously many of the founders were hypocrites and inconsistent with their principles with regards to slavery/racism. That has no bearing on the validity of the principles established in the Declaration of Independence.[/QUOTE]Since they were hypocrites, why in the fvck would any sane person believe slave owners and traitors to be the end all be all in the modern day?

Also, I'm not well versed in early American history but I always learned that the states declared independence because of taxation without representation, not that nonsense you said.

[/QUOTE] I am supporting the libertarian principles they advocated, not the actual founders themselves. I do not understand why you have so much difficulty separating an idea from the person expressing the idea, especially when it comes to the US founders. Also you clearly have not read the Declaration of Independence.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It must be easy to argue something when you aren't restrained by reality.[/QUOTE] Please explain what is unrealistic about what I am saying. Please substantiate your claims, as I have substantiated my own.[/QUOTE] Please, you haven't substantiated sh!t. You're just spewing diarrhea from your keyboard. What is the socialist school of thought that you cited that demonstrates that socialism "exists on the assumption that the individual's life is inherently meaningless"? Who is the socialist that ran on that platform? [/QUOTE]A life believed to be inherently meaningful would not be sacrificed for anything. Socialism requires that each individual be sacrificed for "society", which inevitably means whoever holds authority over a given group of people (an example being the communist party in the USSR).