Modern Perceptions on Jefferson vs. Hamilton

I just witnessed a very sobering moment. In a University history class, we were discussing the ideological clash between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton during the period of the Early Republic, and how they had very different visions for the future of America. On one hand, Hamilton advocated for a central national bank and increasing urbanization/industrialization, and believed that debt was a good thing. Jefferson, meanwhile, saw cities as breeding grounds for vice, and felt that self-government necessitated a virtuous citizenry, which required personal independence (freedom from debt). This, of course, is a very simplistic characterization of their respective views, but it gets the general points across. Obviously, neither view is perfect. Personally, I prefer Jefferson's vision, but I don't believe that Hamilton's does not possess important ideas.

Anyhow, when the professor polled the students on which vision of American they personally preferred, ALMOST EVERYONE supported Hamilton. When the professor went from student to student asking them to explain their choice, these were some of the responses:

>"the musical mentions my name lol"
>"the general opinion seemed to be going in that direction, so I went with Hamilton."

Seriously? So, because a trendy, hipster musical popularizes the one Founding Father that the Left doesn't seem so keen to constantly denigrate, we must automatically subscribe to a system which seeks to attain group cohesion through debt slavery?

I feel that the responses in the class suggest a larger cultural movement. Hamilton's star has risen while Jefferson's has fallen. Both were undoubtedly great men, but I feel that the recent championing of Hamilton in pop culture, combined with the coordinated attack on Jefferson's legacy, should garner our collective suspicion. Hamilton's rise will create more acceptance towards centralization, while Jefferson's fall will tarnish the ideas of classical republicanism.

What do you think?

Attached: Jefferson vs. Hamilton.jpg (1200x675, 169K)

Other urls found in this thread:

let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/
youtube.com/watch?v=fh-TKJTCtnw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Bump.

Hamilton was a genius and Washington's closest advisor, but your classmates are morons.

Hamilton's a fash goy.
Jefferson's a lolbertarian.

I think you're overstating the influence of the Musical---obviously young folk are influenced by silly musicals and zeitgeists--but as you also proved in your story, it's not like they have well thought out opinions on Hamilton. I think the tendency towards centralization and the fall of classical republican ideals would happen regardless of the musical.

Also---I'd bet that Jefferson and Hamilton's had less control over America's direction than it may seem due to their prevalence in history. America already had urban centers while Jefferson and Hamilton were around, and urban centers by their own nature grow more in population and influence over time, and with that comes the apparent necessity of centralized rule
>population density leads to more people, cultures, businesses, etc. overlapping
>more social systems overlapping SEEMS to require the need for centralized oversight

I also prefer Jefferson's dream, but there is no way the yeoman farmer could be truly actualized in today's climate. While I like Jefferson more, it appears that Hamilton was more the realist in some ways.

Take heart though, we won't forget who wrote the Declaration of Independence. That's a more potent historical artifact than Hamilton's "Federalist Papers"---which interestingly enough, strongly support america as a republic and not a true democracy (because mob rule)---so liberals also disagree with hamilton without even knowing that he would have hated leftist tactics. I'd say they both are great men, and idiots will always have idiot opinions and idiot interpretations---but that's their loss. Learn from them anyways, no need take sides on historical figures (sounds like a dumb class, though the comparing the two is worthwhile)

Attached: 1536009498904.jpg (920x1243, 496K)

>What do you think?
Your class is full of NPCs.

bump for frontal lobe stimulation

Yes, there is definitely some kind of operation to tarnish Jefferson’s reputation and elevate Hamilton. For instance, most people accept as fact that Jefferson had kids with the slave girl. Nothing could be farther from the truth and the rumor actually started when he was alive as a campaign smear and he denied it. Also, sometimes I’ve even seen suggestions that Hamilton was mixed race. Idk what the end game is. I was just a museum in Virginia and the liberal tour guide couldn’t stop praising Hamilton and ofc denigrated Aaron Burr and compared him to Trump. She was somewhat neutral about Jefferson.

Transfer schools

The thing is---it's latently a smear against Hamilton, too, for him to become some neo-liberal hero.

Just started digging into The Federalist Papers, and everything seems pretty redpilled

I see your point about the inevitability of centralization, but that's a very scary proposition. To be clear, I grew up in a densely populated suburb of a big city, so I don't have some attachment to rural life (though it does seem very comfy), and I certainly don't personally embody Jefferson's lauded archetype of the yeoman farmer. But does this inevitable transition necessitate the ultimate rule of decadence and the death of virtue? Is classical republicanism doomed to fail? Was Jefferson's vision just a pipe dream? I would rather have hope.

Attached: The Course of Empire - Destruction.jpg (600x370, 73K)

Excellent comment. Thanks user!

Jefferson was a liberal Jacobin who no platformed David Hume's books at Charlottesville because they were pro-Tory

Hamilton was a nationalist

Attached: heil_hamilton.jpg (838x1067, 592K)

That is true, though lot of them were written by James Madison, who probably belonged more to the Jeffersonian school.

When it came to ratifying the Constitution, creating a new national government, and codifying the idea of America as a Republic, most of these men saw eye to eye. So, they agreed on the things that really truly mattered. The splits seemed to come later on.

>tour guide

Report her, claim her politicization made you uncomfortable.

Also, I'll add this: Hamilton saw the largely Madisonian plan as too weak, and that was already taking central authority to new levels. He ultimately supported the Constitution (a fusion of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans) because he thought that anything was better than the weak Articles of Confederation.

Pic related was Hamilton's true desire.

Attached: Hamilton Plan.png (2144x746, 376K)

I appreciate the response. I'm glad that I'm not the only one seeing this.

It's because economic nationalism wins and agrarianism is for faggots.

Attached: 1528780795841.jpg (335x547, 128K)

The funny thing is normies hated Hamilton if they even knew who he was until that gay minstrel show appeared on Broadway.

I'm against both Jefferson and Hamilton. Jefferson was a retarded Jacobin and Hamilton was a little too left-wing.

>But does this inevitable transition necessitate the ultimate rule of decadence and the death of virtue?
No
> Is classical republicanism doomed to fail?
No
>Was Jefferson's vision just a pipe dream?
Yes,
Literally every agrarian civilization got fucked in the ass.

>group cohesion through debt slavery
Like every society ever, if you don't limit yourself to economic debt. Seriously, read Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years" and apply whatever corrective you need to apply against an economic supporter of the working class.
>automatically subscribe
That's the petit-bourgeoisie for you. I mean, whether they will say as much or not, their future careers as degreed professionals are more likely than not centered around administering the conditions of that debt slavery. It's not automatic, it's intentional.

>"the musical mentions my name lol"
>"the general opinion seemed to be going in that direction, so I went with Hamilton."
they are NPCs. that's how they are literally programmed, through peer pressure and popular media. they do not think.

You don't like to eat much, do you boy.

What fucking musical are you talking about? A musical about Hamilton? What?

So, then, classical republicanism (the core of America's founding) does not need agrarianism to survive? How, then, can we ensure the personal independence of the people, and thus their inability to be bribed/corrupted, without land ownership in the traditional Jeffersonian sense? Genuine question.

Fuck no, well I'm trying to cut back...

Attached: 3da459620ee80ad2790c14068a4be27f.jpg (600x450, 71K)

Hamilton was a literal white nationalist that knew you needed a centralized government to project power and manage finances

Even Jefferson eventually admitted that if not in rhetoric than in policy (using the military to kill muslim pirates)

Is this trolling in 2018?

This

libertarians are the actual NPCs, and Jefferson's actions were more federalist than "agricultural republican".

Economic nationalism and tariffs results in far more agricultural output due to mechanization.

Libertarians are retarded

Hamilton was incredibly red pilled

There’s is no way a university class voted for Hamilton unless they genuinely knew nothing about either of them

>personal independence, inability to be bribed or corrupted
>Classical republicanism
Does not compute. Seriously, the point of Republicanism is to protect Puritans and business, not to protect the masses.

Not necessarily. Sure the yeoman farmer isn't exactly common or achievable but the blue collar mechanic and tradesman carries much of the same spirit.

The responses indicate that most people are functionally retarded. Not from inability but from a culture promoting laziness and glorifying a lack of thought.

Is debt inevitable, then? How can a virtuous, republican society stay healthy if debt plays such a prevalent role in social and economic transactions? I think that this is what Jefferson feared in Hamilton's vision.

>That's the petit-bourgeoisie for you. I mean, whether they will say as much or not, their future careers as degreed professionals are more likely than not centered around administering the conditions of that debt slavery. It's not automatic, it's intentional.

It's funny, because so many young liberals are often so concerned about "the rich versus the poor," yet they themselves embody the bourgeoisie.

>In a University history class, we were
>we

Stop larping faggot, fake and gay

Good point!

Jefferson's vision of America was killed by the Southern Confederacy, which stupidly and forever tied the concept of states' rights to the institution of slavery. Personally, I think America would be better off and less polarized if the states did more and the federal government did less, but the pro-feds will always argue that a strong federal government is necessary to protect minorities from oppression.

I wish I was larping, user. This is also one of the top Universities in America.

debt has existed since the beginning of civilization

The best way to manage debt is with a national bank. During the middle ages, at least before the Italian Republics the private jew merchants managed debt finance and you can only imagine how awful things were.

The FED is basically a private bank, we need a national bank again like Hamilton wanted.

We should all be National Socialists like you, right retard? Gonna need a daddy figure to tell you how to spend? Central banking give you wood, you idolatrous faggot? Authoritarians are faggot retards of massive proportions. They love to be told what to do because they love gay cock in their ass.

>National socialism

I believe in Nationalism and so did Hamilton and even Jefferson in the end.

>Central banking give you wood

We need a national bank because that's the only thing that can save the economy from debt

>a daddy figure to tell you how to spend?

The government is supposed to spend money, taxes should be low though, we had low taxes under Hamilton's system until retards like you lowered tariffs and raised income taxes. Faggot

Agreed---I certainly didn't give Madison enough credit.

Highly recommend "The Federalist Papers" to any user who wants to become more politically literate
let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/
>it's fun to remember that politics and government used to be really romantic and epic, not just media wars.

How is the FED a *private* bank?

Hey, thank you, b-bro

How would a national bank make things better? Also, why does the Fed embody a private bank more than a national bank if it is technically a bank of the United States and not a corporation?

How so? Can you elaborate? Enjoying this thread.

>Is debt inevitable, then? How can a virtuous, republican society stay healthy if debt plays such a prevalent role in social and economic transactions? I think that this is what Jefferson feared in Hamilton's vision.
They stay virtuous by being indebted to each other, rather than to a creditor class. Jefferson vs. Hamilton, again.
It is funny, isn't it? The concern about rich vs. poor on the part of liberals is just babby's first virtue signalling and a form of conspicuous consumption Unless they actually came from a place of poverty and have enough character to remember their roots, in which case they generally do give more of a fuck about the lot of the working class.

The problem is when the banks decide that their only function is to make paper behave like gold, rather than manage the nation's money for public purpose.

States can't really do more unless they issue currency or beg some jew for permission. Currency unions without political union are always and ever bad news.

>Is debt inevitable, then? How can a virtuous, republican society stay healthy if debt plays such a prevalent role in social and economic transactions? I think that this is what Jefferson feared in Hamilton's vision.
Republics can't stay virtuous, they are marketplaces for the purchase of law.

The lack of state power is paradoxically caused by an insecure government that is, in reality, not strong enough, rather than too strong. A democratic republic simply can't afford to delegate power to states, competition over control of the government necessitates attempts for the ruling party to bring different states into alignment with their general program.

>But does this inevitable transition necessitate the ultimate rule of decadence and the death of virtue? Is classical republicanism doomed to fail? Was Jefferson's vision just a pipe dream?
We shall see, I guess! I'm hoping that as over-population and high-prices become even greater issues in cities, we will see a greater shift to what might be a "modern yeoman" lifestyle, whatever that may be.

And yeah, it's forsure scary--but 2016 (regardless of anyone's personal politics) was a win for classical republicanism-----the cities didn't win. Hopefully this won't be utterly reversed in 2020
>not saying cities are intrinsically bad, just that they inherently favor centralization and have a greater tendency towards mono-thought

Side comment but thank you too user. It was a great comment. And that kind of validation really helps propagate future posts.

>States can't really do more unless they issue currency
Healthcare, welfare, education, and senior care could all be handled at the state level (which they had been prior to FDR).

It's managed as if it were a private bank with all the major banks owning shares.

A national bank should only be managed by either the executive branch or an elected representative

A national bank allows a country to essentially pay for what it wants based on the productive level of the economy and not how many pieces of shiny gold rocks you have.

That's exactly why you need a national bank to counteract the effects of private banks. Private banks already print money out of nothing, when they ruin the economy you need a national bank to counteract the effect aka act counter cyclically. Without counter cyclical action the economy will spiral into deflation and stagnation which is exactly what has happened for most people in America who aren't landowners or bankers. Wages have been stagnant since the 1970s and housing prices and assets are skyrocketing and so is cost of living. That has to be fixed.

Agreed again, Hamilton and Madison are not ideologically the same.

Hamilton's plan is interesting, sort of a micro-parliament and pseudo-monarch for each state. Obvious downsides being having to deal with politicians you didn't like for a LONG time, as well as the almost assured corruption/nepotism of federally elected governors.

That being said, sometimes I think having most of government positions being relatively short-termed breeds constant reversals of policy and political gridlocking. Shit's complicated, who'd have guessed.

it really was a good post.

>"modern yeoman"

I like this.

>2016 was a win for classical republicanism

This is exactly how I viewed it, too. The minute policy issues were insignificant next to the greater ideological clash. It really was a battle between Americanism and global communism.

See And competition for power over the federal government could be contained by limiting the powers of the federal government. The Constitution limited the powers of Congress to those set forth in Article 1 Section 8. Everything else was to be left to the states. The pro-fed Democrats destroyed this restraint on federal power during the FDR administration by threatening to pack the Supreme Court. They basically forced the court to rule that Congress' power "to regulate Commerce... among the several States" means Congress can regulate anything that plausibly *affects* commerce. I shit you not. 70 years of liberals on the Supreme Court have totally perverted limitations on Congress's power. /rant

>Healthcare, welfare, education, and senior care could all be handled at the state level (which they had been prior to FDR).
Not to the standard of a modern state. Notice how European countries could better provide goods and services for their people before the Euro became boss? You would be dealing with the same problem: a state that continually balances the general welfare against the specific welfare out of necessity, with the specific welfare too reliably prevailing.

99% agree, except:
>Private banks already print money out of nothing
To be clear, all fiat currencies are printed out of nothing. Taxes are just inventory management.

>neoliberal capitalism and private ownership are communist
Hayek would disagree.
You have to go back, boomer.

Sometimes I find myself agreeing with liberals on the topics of healthcare, welfare, education, etc.---except I just think it'd be obscenely inefficient (and therefore immoral) to enact this at a federal government.

Conservatives could be a really successful party if they co-opted some liberal talking points, but attributed their potential functionality to more local levels---which is fundamentally a conservative ideal, and therefore is not a betrayal of core values. Might win a lot of independents and maybe even some liberals.

Interesting point. Also, checked.

You just perfectly summarized my position. Some states can afford generous social programs that the entire country could not afford.

>You would be dealing with the same problem: a state that continually balances the general welfare against the specific welfare out of necessity, with the specific welfare too reliably prevailing.
I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase?

A non-secure government is going to have this sort of thing happen.

>implying that large government and large corporations don't go together

Just look at Google. Private company, right? Can you imagine if someone other than Trump was President? Almost everyone else would be using the government as a tool to aid Google's campaign to "promote civility" and censor "bad" opinions.

>classmates are morons
That's always true for any class outside STEM.
Even half the STEM fags are bad at it.

the modern yeoman could actually be tenable---relatively isolated (compared to urban and suburban environments) but technological advances (internet, VR chatrooms and gaming, better, faster transportation to population hubs) could make isolation less damaging.

also---one thing I've always kind of liked about the leftist granola movement is the return to self-sustainable livestock and gardens (even though right-wing folk have been doing this for quite some time, just posting less on the internet about it). It'd be cool to have private, sustainable food sources coupled with high-tech connectivity.

>protect Puritans and business

What?

American Conservatives would be a very successful party if they intelligently and efficiently adopted health care, welfare, and education reform. Implement checks-and-balances on the system such that we should prevent abuses of the system for the greater good of its beneficiaries, e.g. you're not eligible for educational opportunities if you don't do well in school, check-ups are covered, but frequent fliers to the ER for non-emergencies are not, etc. These ideas are not mutually exclusive with a Republican system, and although they go against "small-government" principles that many Conservatives rightly hold, this could be more comfortable if it were implemented on a state-by-state level, even with some states choosing to opt out of such a scheme.

>It'd be cool to have private, sustainable food sources coupled with high-tech connectivity.

This is what the leftists and our current Federal representatives dread, the self-sustaining American who realizes that they really don't need the Federal government to do what they themselves can do or what their local or state governments can better represent for them.

Why do leftists never seem to get in trouble for bad behavior? Protip: they invoke rights to protect themselves and ignore them when going after enemies.
Why can't businesses ever be punished for harmful behavior like spending millions lobbying for immigration every year? Protip: it's because donors decide the direction of policy.

>the modern yeoman could actually be tenable---relatively isolated (compared to urban and suburban environments) but technological advances (internet, VR chatrooms and gaming, better, faster transportation to population hubs) could make isolation less damaging.

This sounds absolutely fantastic. user, I want this future.

I also agree with your point about a return to self-sustainable food sources.

>Some states can afford generous social programs that the entire country could not afford.
Exactly! And that would be good---states that didn't want to pay more federal taxes would be happy, and maybe it would incite some healthy competition between states, both out of pride and to incentivize people not to move out of their own state for greener pastures. Admittedly I'm out of my depth here, though---I don't have the "DATA" or poli-sci basis to back up any of those guesses lol

What do you mean by secure or non-secure government? Militarily? Economically?

That's not inherent in Republicanism, especially your second point.

In fact, if the citizenry is truly virtuous (as Republicanism champions), then the government can never be used as a corrupt tool, because the government would be a reflection of the people, which, in this case, are responsible.

Non-monarchy basically.

>In fact, if the citizenry is truly virtuous (as Republicanism champions), then the government can never be used as a corrupt tool, because the government would be a reflection of the people, which, in this case, are responsible.
>vote for immigration restriction
>Hey Senator, I'll give you a 7 figure job at my nonprofit if you vote against The Wall.
>Okay.
>Hurr the people wuzn't virtuous just vote em out!
Pure autism.

Historically the only means of reversing the processes of urbanization and centralization has been cataclysm.

What you're saying makes perfect sense. It also illustrates why Democrats want everything to be accomplished at the federal level. States that offer generous welfare programs for the needy will necessitate high taxes to fund those programs. In a nation that permits the free movement of citizens between states, needy people will move to the states with generous welfare programs and taxpaying individuals will move out, making the welfare state fiscally unsustainable.

Again, you're assuming that bribery is a fundamental component of all republics. Jefferson stated multiple times that monied interests in politics would be the bane of freedom. But you can't seem to let that go.

>implying that small ruling classes and large corporations don't go together
The East India Company was hardly the product of a "big government", The concept of "big government" is a distraction, in that it denies that any difference by kind or function is meaningful or possible. It's one-dimensional gaymer stats thinking.
What's more, Google's recent censorship movement is entirely and totally a private sector affair. The government is simply standing out of the way like a good lolbertarian referee and letting muh market sort it out.
I will agree that if we could fire our legislators at any time, same as the at-will employment they've seen fit to inflict upon us, they probably wouldn't be doing this.

Some baitlord user can't into the difference between small-r republicanism and the GOP.

>you're not eligible for educational opportunities if you don't do well in school
I like the Russian system better: you have all the educational opportunities you can maintain a B-average for.
>frequent fliers to the ER for non-emergencies are not
If urgent care were paid for, you wouldn't have people troubling the ERs for trifles.

I am, because it is. Jefferson is doing the equivalent of saying that no one will starve under Communism if we just collectivize the farms correctly.

How new are you?

>I like the Russian system better: you have all the educational opportunities you can maintain a B-average for.
can you elaborate on the Russian system? I'm curious. I'm not familiar with their education or health care systems.

>If urgent care were paid for, you wouldn't have people troubling the ERs for trifles.
Good point.

How is it inherently a part of a Republic? You haven't explained that yet.

>American Conservatives would be a very successful party if they intelligently and efficiently adopted health care, welfare, and education reform. Implement checks-and-balances on the system such that we should prevent abuses of the system for the greater good of its beneficiaries, e.g. you're not eligible for educational opportunities if you don't do well in school, check-ups are covered, but frequent fliers to the ER for non-emergencies are not, etc. These ideas are not mutually exclusive with a Republican system, and although they go against "small-government" principles that many Conservatives rightly hold, this could be more comfortable if it were implemented on a state-by-state level, even with some states choosing to opt out of such a scheme.
Greentexting it all because it's so spot on. I think the fetish for "small-government" is a good value to hold, but there are realities that couldn't be foreseen (huge populations and accompanying competition, rampant corporatism, displacement of jobs via technology, and generally an obscenely high standard of living/access to resources/information, that supersedes traditional notions of work and self-reliance).

>they really don't need the Federal government to do what they themselves can do or what their local or state governments can better represent for them.
yup, and ironically, giving less authority to the federal government should in theory make it more efficient and specialized as per national defense, foreign relations, trade deals, overseeing national and international business practices (i'm not a pure free market guy), and occassionally mediating for and between states.

>The government is simply standing out of the way like a good lolbertarian referee and letting muh market sort it out.

I agree, but it shouldn't be. When Theodore Roosevelt busted the large trusts, was he being authoritarian? Of course not. It was arguably a necessary function of government.

that's the Nixon option and unfortunately the neocon shills don't like it, but we're going to have to force them into it

Because business can always offer more to a politician than his constituents can. What do they care if they're out the next election if they can get a nice job at a nonprofit?

MODS SHUT IT DOWN THIS THREAD IS ACTUALLY POLITICAL

Me too, user, me too. Couple it with some sweet, simple architecture and it'd be close to heaven---but all the more heavenly because it at least SEEMS truly possible.

...and you are subservient to Hamilton.
He would seek to own me as he did Washington. Jefferson, whom you despise, is an infinitely better man.
I WOULD RATHER BE VICE PRESIDENT UNDER HIM
OR RESIDENT MINISTER OF THE BARBARY PIRATES, BEFORE BECOMING INDEBTED TO A CREATURE
SUCH AS HAMILTON FROM MY PRESENT POST!

Attached: paul-giamatti-john-adams.jpg (1200x675, 40K)

I'm only going by what one user said in passing, but ISTR that university tuition was free (i.e. a public service), and you got a living stipend if you maintained a 3.0 average. I wish I knew more details too.

>When Theodore Roosevelt busted the large trusts, was he being authoritarian
Arguably, of course. I'm sure the answer depends on who you ask.
The point being that you can't depend upon "betters" actually being better, much less remaining better once they have been elevated to Mt. Olympus.

Or lobbying, for 2-5x the salary of their government position.
Or some other no-show executive- or board-like position.
Life was much better before the general corporation, back when corporations had to state their purpose in their charters, and could have them pulled for acting outside of that purpose.

Excellently put. And then the welfare people---if successful after a little help from government-gibsme---might seek out less taxes and greater inddividual "freedom" in another state, while people who have it tough in the "free" state would be able to find a state with better welfare.

Assuming population growth isn't catastrophic (and probably some other potential disruptors), it could be a nice little cycle!

There's nothing wrong with corporations per se, it's just that you don't have a check on them because >Republic. That would be tyranny naturally, can't have that.

good show

>implying governmental control and/or tyranny is entirely incompatible with a liberal republic
John Stuart Mill literally said a tyrant in government is preferable to a tyrant in society. Also
>It is not the fortunes which are earned, but those which are unearned, that it is for the public good to place under limitation.

Ok after 5 mins, I cant watch anymore of this broadway shit, they must all orgy backstage. Obama endorsed, just like trans brainwashing.


Here's the Jefferson musical
youtube.com/watch?v=fh-TKJTCtnw

Attached: frog.jpg (480x360, 23K)

not that user, but..
>T.R. was arguably being an authoritarian
>Can't rely on betters being better (i like that phrase, btw)
I generally agree with your skepticism of executive interference in business/commerce, but I think the good counter-argument (and one that too few republicans acknowledge) is that mega-corporations and monopolies eventually limit consumer options, can artificially jack up prices, and make it virtually impossible for smaller businesses//new entrepreneurs to compete.
>the argument against THAT though is usually, "but the market will decide against unethical business practices" or "entrepreneurs would be forced to come up with ways to remain competitive, and thus improve the marketplace as a whole"
there's merit to this, but I think ultimately it's too idealistic---but maybe it's also idealistic to assume people could regulate business without being prone to corruption themselves.

There's a certain irony to republicans who hate big government, but are endlessly forgiving to mega-corporations (who in some ways have comparable power over their day to day lives)

Attached: 26-P1150047_2000_1500.jpg (1500x1875, 1.28M)

I was thinking of this as well. It's interesting how this show, distributed on one of the biggest television channel in America, portrayed Jefferson as the virtuous good guy and Hamilton as the ratty subversive. This was only 10 years ago, in 2008. Has the cultural zeitgeist shifted that much since then?

user, check out "1776" the Musical. It's the true American musical, not Hamilton.

>There's a certain irony to republicans who hate big government, but are endlessly forgiving to mega-corporations (who in some ways have comparable power over their day to day lives)

The rise of "Trumpism" has shifted some of these distinctions considerably.

proto-boomers were rad

Attached: pol fathers.png (1240x1870, 2.21M)

>but I feel that
Tits or gtfo