Skip to content

Philippine’s “Prophet of Disaster”: Salvador Araneta

July 17, 2012

Historically, the strongest and most organized advocate of protectionism in the Philippines is a group called National Economic Protectionism. This tool of protectionism and big government founded in 1934 aims to foster “the spirit of economic nationalism and national industrialization, and promotes the protection of Filipino interests in the country’s polity, economy, culture and environment.”

One of the most influential founding officers of NEPA was Salvador Araneta, an industrialist, economist, educator, and Filipino statesman. With his strong defense of protectionism (allegedly to protect our local industries, but in reality to help and protect Filipino oligarchs and cronies like him), Araneta was one of early builders of Philippine Oligarchy that remains dominant today.

Araneta’s undeniable influence in helping shape the country’s economic and political history should not be ignored when one tries to understand how protectionism became an almost inherent part of our national politics and constitution. A highly educated man, Araneta first entered politics in 1935 when he was elected delegate to the constitutional convention that created the Commonwealth Constitution. His political position made him instrumental in the creation of many governmental institutions that shaped the philosophical, political and economic foundation of this country.

Obviously fueled by his strong sense of nationalism, Araneta opposed the Bell Trade Act and passionately advocated national sovereignty, taxing autonomy, currency authority, and tariff protection, a position that placed him in direct opposition to then newly elected president Manuel L. Roxas. For his views on the trade agreement, Araneta was called by Roxas “a prophet of disaster”. If we are to study and understand the country’s economic history since 1935, we wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Roxas was absolutely right about his prescient description of Araneta, who was indeed a ‘prophet of disaster’.

However, there’s one particular statement Araneta made that caught my attention. He made the following statement in a speech before the Manila Rotary Club in January 1947, entitled ‘Precepts We Can Not Surrender’:

“There is no country (with the exception of England which was the first to turn to industrialization) which has been able to become industrialized without having had to protect its industries. The United States, with all its natural resources, had to protect its industries with high tariff barriers. From the time of its first Secretary of Treasury, the great Alexander Hamilton, to the present time, the United States has in fact consistently been a highly protectionist country.”

It is worthy of note that he particularly mentioned the name Alexander Hamilton to justify his argument that even America practiced protectionism to protect its economic interests against Great Britain and other more established empires in Europe. This is not at all surprising, because most advocates of protectionism in the United States cite Hamilton as the founding father of America’s protectionism.

The mere fact that one or two of the founding fathers favored protectionism does not mean America was founded as a protectionist nation. Advocates of protectionism tend to forget the man who penned the Declaration of Independence: Thomas Jefferson, who was Hamilton’s political and ideological enemy.

If Hamilton was an advocate of strong central government, Jefferson strongly favored a decentralized republic. Hamilton believed that efficiency, order and organization must be brought to public life, whereas Jefferson once said “I am not a friend to a very energetic government.”

Supporting the idea that America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity and operations of government, he devised a central bank of the United States. Hamilton strongly favored the imposition of tariffs, relying on a version of an ‘infant industry’ premise: that temporary protection of new businesses can help boost the growth of competitive national industries.

Today’s America embraced the soul and influence of Hamilton. In fact, the Federal Reserve named Hamilton as its founding father.

In the Philippines, the cataclysmic legacy of the ‘prophet of disaster’ — Salvador Araneta– remains influential and dominant.

In regard to the disastrous legacy of Hamilton, American economist Thomas DiLorenzo made the following commentary:

Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side was altogether different. It’s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might say.

It was Hamilton who coined the phrase “The American System” to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello), Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas. Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as Sir James Steuart.

Hamilton championed the cause of a large public debt — which he called “a public blessing” — not to establish the credit of the US government or to finance any particular public works projects but for the Machiavellian idea of tying the interests of the more affluent to the state: being government bondholders, they would, he believed, then support all of his grandiose plans for heavy taxation and a government much larger than what was called for in the Constitution. He was right. They, along with Wall Street investment bankers who have marketed the government’s bonds, have always provided effective political support for bigger government and higher taxes. That is why Wall Street investment bankers were first in line for a bailout, administered by one of their fellow investment bankers, Treasury Secretary Paulson.

Hamilton argued for a large standing army not because he feared an invasion by France or England, but because he understood that the European monarchs had used such armies to intimidate their own citizens when it came to tax collection. Evidence of this is the fact that Hamilton personally led some 15,000 conscripts into Western Pennsylvania (with George Washington) to attempt to quell the famous Whiskey Rebellion. He was eventually put in charge of the entire expedition, and rounded up two dozen tax protesters, every one of whom he wanted to hang. They were all pardoned by George Washington, however, to Hamilton’s everlasting regret.

In a publication entitled “A History of Central Banking in America” the Fed proudly labels Hamilton as its founding father, boasting that he even spoke just like a contemporary Fed chairman. The First Bank of the United States, which was opposed by Jefferson and Madison, created 72 percent inflation in its first five years of operation, as Murray Rothbard wrote in A History of Money and Banking in the United States. It was not rechartered in 1811, but was resurrected by Congress in 1817, after which it created America’s first boom-and-bust cycle, which led to the Panic of 1819, the title of another of Rothbard’s great works on American economic history.

After years of generating political corruption and economic instability, Hamilton’s bank finally came to an end by the early 1840s, thanks to President Andrew Jackson. This led to the twenty-year “free banking” era. Hamiltonian central banking was resurrected once again in the 1860s with the National Currency Acts. This is an important reason why some historians have labeled the postwar decades as a period of “Hamiltonian hegemony.”

When Anna Schwartz, Michael Bordo, and Peter Rappaport evaluated this precursor to the Fed in an academic publication, they concluded that it was characterized by “monetary and cyclical instability, four banking panics, frequent stock market crashes, and other financial disturbances” (see their paper in Claudia Goldin, ed., Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century Economic Growth). Naturally, the government’s response to all of this economic panic and instability caused by centralized banking was to create an even more centralized banking system with the Federal Reserve Act.

Hamilton is perhaps best known among economists for his Report on Manufactures. In his 1905 biography of Hamilton, William Graham Sumner wrote that Hamilton’s report advocated “the old system of mercantilism of the English school, turned around and adjusted to the situation of the United States.” Thomas Jefferson also wrote that Hamilton’s “schemes” for protectionism, corporate welfare, and central banking were “the means by which the corrupt British system of government could be introduced into the United States.” They were right.

Hamilton’s reputation as having had great expertise in economics and finance has been greatly exaggerated, wrote Sumner, who also wrote that Hamilton’s economic thinking was marred by “confusion and contradiction” and that Hamilton was “befogged in the mists of mercantilism.” Unfortunately for us, all of Hamilton’s bad ideas “proved a welcome arsenal to the politicians” who succeeded him, noted Sumner.

Advertisements
21 Comments leave one →
  1. mjrowland permalink
    July 27, 2012 3:38

    Ayn Rand and other anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are either ignorant, lying, or both if they claim that the U.S. constitutional republic was founded on rabid so-called “individualism” and laissez faire economics, since serious study of U.S. history proves quite the contrary.

    Finding this blog post was rather ironic, because I recently wrote a piece myself on the U.S. struggle for not only political—but also economic—sovereignty which addresses a theme similar to the one you have discussed here. You can find it at http://romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/for-indepence-from-empire-the-spirit-of-76-and-pan-asian-nationalism/

    I have found that this article here carries the following fallacies:

    1.  The U.S. Declaration of Independence was certainly not the sole work of Jefferson, but a joint effort between he, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. While the language may primarily be Jefferson’s, much of the idea content came from Franklin (who substituted “life, liberty and property” for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”). American economic scientist Lyndon LaRouche—whom I would assume you are familiar with—has written volumes of material showing how true modern economic science began with G.W. Leibniz, and that Franklin, who was the intellectual giant and central leadership figure of the American movement for independence, was a disciple of the Platonist circles in continental Europe associated with the tradition of Leibniz—a tradition that stood in direct and explicit opposition to the Aristotelean current typified by British Enlightenment figures such as John Locke.

    2.  You assert here that Hamilton’s Bank of the United States was the basis for the Federal Reserve.  Despite claims from the American “economic royalists” of the early 20th century who misinvoked Hamilton’s name when calling for the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the two central banks—while similar in organizational structure—are profoundly different in what they were created for, and who they are answerable to.  In my article, I wrote:

    “Contrary to popular opinion, the National Bank was not the basis for creating the Federal Reserve.  The Fed unconstitutionally exists and operates largely outside the control of U.S. Congress—the lawful representatives of the people.  Hamilton’s National Bank, on the other hand, was chartered and overseen by Congress, with operational functions being part of the U.S. Treasury Department.  This is in concordance with Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that only Congress has the power to utter currency.”

    However, you are correct in pointing out the National Bank existed to create credit in order to finance infant industries.  And yet, during your ranting against Hamilton and Araneta, you somehow forgot to actually refute the core of their argument: That national sovereignty also means economic sovereignty (which, contrary to what Rand-worshippers might assume, does not necessarily mean economic isolationism), which means establishing protectionism and a national system of financing to prevent hostile foreign and imperialist forces from deliberately preventing progress in industrial and technological development, and that by practicing this, the U.S. grew into a great economic powerhouse.  This was the basis of the economic nationalism of the “American System” outlook of Hamiltonians such as Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, Mathew and Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, et.al.  The idea that a strong central government is needed to both protect national economic progress from parasitic looters—both foreign and domestic—and facilitate the fostering and proliferation of private interests that work in harmony with a republican government in developing the economic activity that promotes what the U.S. Constitution calls the “General Welfare” is most certainly not a Marxist—or even proto-Marxist—idea, and only an irrational ideologue would continue to claim thus.  In fact, Marx himself praised “British System” economists Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus, and rebuked Friedrich List, a leading Hamiltonian advocate in Germany, when the latter attempted to open a productive dialogue with him.

    3.  Lastly, while classical liberals such as Jefferson and James Madison were indeed at odds with Hamilton over economic policy while he was alive, both men seem to have changed their views to more or less agree with him later in their political careers.  According to recent work by historian and LaRouche associate Anton Chaitkin, the experiences surrounding the War of 1812 led them to new revelations about the need for national banking and protectionism.  The charter for the First National Bank expired in 1811, and as a result of the factionalization forming between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, it was not renewed.  The inability of the U.S. economy to recover after being devastated by war, as well as a best-selling book by Franklin’s protege Mathew Carey, which called for a coalition of all American patriots to unify and dump the free trade doctrine of Adam Smith, led Madison and Jefferson to recognize the need for their infant republic to build a strong national economy to resist the assaults—both military and economic—of a hostile British Empire.  In fact, it was Madison himself, who, as president, signed the charter for the Second National Bank in 1816.

    If you and your fellow anarcho-capitalists really wish to continue to preach your fanciful, atheistic, world-view about “man being an end in himself”, please do more rigorous homework on American history and stop insisting on the delusion that the U.S. constitutional system is actually based on such insanity.  

    • July 27, 2012 3:38

      You said: “Ayn Rand and other anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are either ignorant, lying, or both if they claim that the U.S. constitutional republic was founded on rabid so-called “individualism” and laissez faire economics, since serious study of U.S. history proves quite the contrary.”

      LOL! What a very ignorant, pathetic response. First, you should read the Federalist Papers. Second, you should understand the reason why the founding fathers adopted federalist republican system instead of democracy. Madison clearly explained that in Federalist Papers # 10 and 39. However I don’t think you’ve read a single piece of the Federalist Papers. If you didn’t read a single page of the Federalist Papers, I don’t think your moronic comment, which shows your ignorance of American constitutional and political history, is worth answering. I discussed that issue here— https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/on-americas-federalism-and-its-conformity-to-republican-principles/

      Your lumping Ayn Rand and the anarcho-capitalists together also shows you don’t know the position/views of either parties. To inform an ignoramus like you, Ayn Rand hated the anarcho-capitalism. She never supported anarcho-capitalism. Also, I don’t think they share Ayn Rand’s view that America was founded as an individualist society.

      But first, we need to understand what Ayn Rand actually said about the individualism of America’s founding fathers.

      Listen, MORON…

      Here’s what she wrote in “For the New Intellectual”:

      “The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshipping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history: they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries: the impotence of man’s mind and the damnation of this earth; they had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man’s metaphysical fate, they proclaimed man’s right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man’s proper existence, by the “unaided” power of their intellect.”

      This:

      “The basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.”

      Also these by Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir:

      “In the modern world, under the influence of the pervasive new climate, a succession of thinkers developed a new conception of the nature of government. The most important of these men and the one with the greatest influence on America was John Locke. The political philosophy Locke bequeathed to the Founding Fathers is what gave rise to the new nation’s distinctive institutions. That political philosophy is the social implementation of the Aristotelian spirit.

      “Throughout history the state had been regarded, implicitly or explicitly, as the ruler of the individual—as a sovereign authority (with or without supernatural mandate), an authority logically antecedent to the citizen and to which he must submit. The Founding Fathers challenged this primordial notion. They started with the premise of the primacy and sovereignty of the individual. The individual, they held, logically precedes the group or the institution of government. Whether or not any social organization exists, each man possesses certain individual rights. And “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—or, in the words of a New Hampshire state document, “among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.”

      —–

      “The genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability not only to grasp the revolutionary ideas of the period, but to devise a means of implementing those ideas in practice, a means of translating them from the realm of philosophic abstraction into that of sociopolitical reality. By defining in detail the division of powers within the government and the ruling procedures, including the brilliant mechanism of checks and balances, they established a system whose operation and integrity were independent, so far as possible, of the moral character of any of its temporary officials—a system impervious, so far as possible, to subversion by an aspiring dictator or by the public mood of the moment.

      “The heroism of the Founding Fathers was that they recognized an unprecedented opportunity, the chance to create a country of individual liberty for the first time in history—and that they staked everything on their judgment: the new nation and their own “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.”

      —–

      “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

      “Jefferson—and the other Founding Fathers—meant it. They did not confine their efforts to the battle against theocracy and monarchy; they fought, on the same grounds, invoking the same principle of individual rights—against democracy, i.e., the system of unlimited majority rule. They recognized that the cause of freedom is not advanced by the multiplication of despots, and they did not propose to substitute the tyranny of a mob for that of a handful of autocrats . . . .

      “When the framers of the American republic spoke of “the people,” they did not mean a collectivist organism one part of which was authorized to consume the rest. They meant a sum of individuals, each of whom—whether strong or weak, rich or poor—retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights.”

      And…

      “The political philosophy of America’s Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentations on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated. It has to be rescued from the shameful barnacles of platitudes now hiding it. It has to be expanded—because it was only a magnificent beginning, not a completed job, it was only a political philosophy without a full philosophical and moral foundation, which the “conservatives” cannot provide.”

      Now that you know the personal views of Ayn Rand on the founding fathers’ “individualism”, do you know what individualism means, MORON?

      What is individualism and why does it frighten stupid, moronic collectivists like you and Obama, Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Jose Ma. Sison, among others?

      Ayn Rand defined individualism in the following fashion: “Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.”

      Individualism does not mean that every man must live as an island. This is one of the worst misconceptions of individualism.

      Libertarian Prof. Tibor R. Machan gave the following definition: “This right to life, this right to liberty, and this right to pursue one’s happiness is unabashedly individualistic, without in the slightest denying at the same time our thoroughly social nature. It’s only that our social relations, while vital to us all, must be chosen -­ that is what makes the crucial difference.”

      Prof. Clifford Thies: “…individualism is not antithetical to community. Rather, it can involve free association and a belief in an over-arching harmony of interests. In a free socety, individuals join with others because of love and mutual benefit, not because they are programmed or coerced.”

      Thomas Jefferson proves America’s individualist political roots through the following passage in his Declaration of Independence:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      What does that mean? It means that the individual- every individual- owns his life, not by others or by the state. That’s what individualism means.

      You need to understand- but I doubt you can- that the term individualism is a POLITICAL CONCEPT. You understand that, MORON?

      The problem with you is that you have a very simplistic world view. And that sets you apart from the strongest enemies of individualism: Hitler, Goebbels, and the Nazis.

      What did the Nazis say about individualism?

      Adolph Hitler: “The unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of the interests of the individual.”

      Hitler: “…we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.”

      Joseph Goebbels: “To be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”

      Now, the proof that America was founded as an individualist country? The Declaration of Independence. But you won’t get it since you don’t even understand what individualism means. That’s the biggest problem you have.

      The rest of your comment is just plain incoherent gibberish.

    • July 27, 2012 3:38

      “Ayn Rand and other anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are either ignorant, lying, or both if they claim that the U.S. constitutional republic was founded on rabid so-called “individualism” and laissez faire economics, since serious study of U.S. history proves quite the contrary.”

      That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read online… I don’t think you understand what individualism means. Also, I don’t think you understand that it’s America’s political structure that sets its laissez faire economics. Also, it’s funny you’ve taken American history out of context just to pursue your agenda.

      Let’s deal with the so stupid issues you raised here…

      1. “The U.S. Declaration of Independence was certainly not the sole work of Jefferson, but a joint effort between he, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin.”

      — Nobody’s making that assertion. I don’t know the value of that claptrap here. What are you trying to prove? That you know nothing?

      2. ” You assert here that Hamilton’s Bank of the United States was the basis for the Federal Reserve.”

      — Where’s the issue?

      From the blog:

      “Hamilton was the intellectual leader of the group of men at the time of the founding who wanted to import the system of British mercantilism and imperialistic government to America. As long as they were on the paying side of British mercantilism and imperialism, they opposed it and even fought a revolution against it. But being on the collecting side was altogether different. It’s good to be the king, as Mel Brooks might say.

      “It was Hamilton who coined the phrase “The American System” to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day, as is argued by such writers as John Steele Gordon. Unlike Jefferson, who had read, understood, and supported the free-market economic ideas of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Baptiste Say (whom Jefferson invited to join the faculty of the University of Virginia), Richard Cantillon, and Turgot (a bust of whom still sits in the entrance to Monticello), Hamilton either ignored or was completely unaware of these ideas. Instead, he repeated the mercantilist myths and superstitions that had been concocted by apologists for the British mercantilist state, such as Sir James Steuart.”

      3. ” Lastly, while classical liberals such as Jefferson and James Madison were indeed at odds with Hamilton over economic policy while he was alive, both men seem to have changed their views to more or less agree with him later in their political careers. According to recent work by historian and LaRouche associate Anton Chaitkin, the experiences surrounding the War of 1812 led them to new revelations about the need for national banking and protectionism.”

      — I have a very big problem with this phrase: “both men seem to have changed their views to more or less agree with him later in their political careers.” Comrade, you’re trying to re-write American political history with your own imagination…

      Everything you said if full of idiocy, I must say… 😉

    • Jones Galt permalink
      July 27, 2012 3:38

      mjrowland,

      I had to flog myself to respond to your ill-informed, ill-researched, condescending, incoherent babble. Yet you had the gall to call those who truly understood America’s political history as either lying or ignorant, or both? You cannot understand America’s individualist political foundation and principles without having a proper understanding of the concepts of individualism and individual rights. Individualism is a political concept that rests on the discovery and protection of individual rights. If you read books on world history, you’d know that America was the first nation on earth to cherish, implement and protect individual rights. That’s what individualism is all about. Prior to the birth of America, there was no political concept of individual rights. The royal empires in Europe claimed their subjects belonged to the Crown. All societies, prior to the establishment of America, believed that the life and property of the individual belonged to society or the state. Again, that’s the philosophical/political meaning of individualism, which you obviously do not understand.

      As to the issue of America’s laissez faire capitalism.

      Laissez faire system was implemented through America’s protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. America recognized the rights of every individual to his life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. Officially, America was the first to institutionalize private property ownership, which is the foundation of laissez faire system. Without property rights you cannot have a capitalist system or society. America also recognized and institutionalized INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, and this made America the nation of builders, inventors and innovators. Because of its IP rights, many inventors, innovators and brilliant minds from foreign countries migrated to the USA, as it was the only country that time that recognized their intellectual property rights.

      But how did America first discover and practice the laissez faire system? Through the following:

      1. Protection of individual rights, including property and IP rights.

      2. Limited government. America’s federalist system was designed to LIMIT THE POWER of the federal government. Historically, the states created the federal government. Jefferson and Madison rejected the idea of giving too much power to the federal government. Read the Federalist Papers, especially the ones mentioned by the blogger. On the other hand, Hamilton supported the idea of making the federal government strong. In fact, he believed that the national/federal government must extend financial help and protection to companies and businesses. Thus, he introduced protectionism through the imposition of tariffs and other protectionist policies.

      The problem with your premise, mjrowland, is that you’re assuming that America was originally established as a Hamiltonian government. That’s a ridiculous claim. America was established as a limited republican government. A capitalist system requires small/limited government that does not interfere or meddle with the people’s economic affairs.

      3. Economic freedom. Jefferson and Madison strongly supported the idea that the national government must not extend any form of help to businesses. Hamilton, on the other hand, envisioned an America of businessmen, entrepreneurs, bankers and financiers. However, to do this, he believed that the government needed to help these people compete in a global marketplace. Hamilton’s financiers, Jefferson claimed, were parasitic corporate elites, dependent for their success on the virtuous labor of independent yeoman farmers. The state, Jefferson argued, had no responsibility at all to provide help to corporations or businesses. If the government was going to help anyone, it should be helping those farmers on whom the commercialists preyed. And the best way to help those farmers, Jefferson argued, was to leave real power close to them, in their state governments, and keep the federal government out of their way. This is the essence of economic freedom. In Jeffersonian terms, economic freedom means the federal government must keep its hands off the economy.

      But of course there are a number of things to oppose, which are inconsistent with individualism and laissez faire system, such as the concept of eminent domain and the Hamiltonian central bank and/or federal reserve.

      Try to study more on America’s constitutional and political history. But first, you need some proper grasp on basic concepts and principles.

  2. mjrowland permalink
    August 31, 2012 3:38

    Well, so sorry it took me so long to get back to you guys. I found that I had so much to elaborate upon in responding to you, that I decided to simply write my own blog post inspired in response to our debate here: http://romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/why-extremist-atheistic-capitalist-ideologues-are-just-as-evil-as-extremist-atheistic-communist-ideologues/
    Sincere, civil, and thoughtful comments are of course welcome.

    Such assaults as repeatedly calling me a “MORON” (and in all caps, nonetheless!) betray an abandonment of your purported devotion to reason in favor of an irrational infantilism, not to mention a poverty in vocabulary. (Although I thank Jones Galt for being the most mature in his comment.)

    Although I never made any personal attacks on you, specifically, I will still admit that my tone was condescending. However, this is mainly due to the unfortunate truth that most Objectivists I have encountered in the past often resemble fanatical Nuremberg rally attendees whenever the authority of High Priestess Alice Rosenbaum and her disciples is challenged.

    That being said, I found that I had so much to elaborate upon in responding to you, that I decided to simply write my own blog post inspired by our debate here.

    There I address what’s wrong with what the Objectivists and others consider to be “individualism”, as well as reiterate my key points previously made above with more detail; points which none of you even attempted to satisfactorily refute:

    1. That the key intellect behind the American Declaration of Independence—especially its point about “unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”—was Franklin, not Jefferson. This is significant chink in the armor of Objectivism, because your ilk maintains that the Declaration reflects the Aristotelian ideas of John Locke. However, Franklin was more immersed in the intellectual tradition of the Christian Platonist G.W. Leibniz, who explicitly opposed Locke.
    2. The Hamiltonian National Banking system is not the predecessor of the Federal Reserve, as is popularly claimed by both Fed proponents alike, just as the National Bank of the United States was not based on the Bank of England model. Alexander Hamilton’s American System of Political Economy made it possible to build the essential infrastructure and manufacturing potential to turn the U.S. into the agro-industrial powerhouse it later became.
    3. There is much evidence available through the citations of my piece that makes a nearly nonarguable case Jefferson and Madison sided with the economic outlook of Mathew Carey and other Hamiltonian nationalists after the nation’s experience during the War of 1812.

    Your other points about how Madison’s explanation on republican government proves that the U.S. system is individualist and laissez faire ideas are quite weak. Although I adamantly agree that democratic republicanism is very different from, and superior to, straight democracy, your citations of Federalist papers 10 and 35 make mention of Madison’s point that are convenient to your agenda, while side-stepping those points that are inconvenient (Madison makes repeated references to the “common” and/or the “public good”—a concept that is anathema to Rand, and his point was not that a Federal system—but that a hybrid of National and Federal)

    • Jones Galt permalink
      August 31, 2012 3:38

      mjrowland,

      Can’t you stick to the topic? Everything you said here is red-herring. You should know the basic logical fallacies. It’s not advisable to respond to logical fallacies.

      Again, the main issue here, which I first responded to, is your baseless claim that “Ayn Rand and other anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are either ignorant, lying, or both if they claim that the U.S. constitutional republic was founded on rabid so-called “individualism” and laissez faire economics, since serious study of U.S. history proves quite the contrary.”

      Read my response above. My suggestion was: “Try to study more on America’s constitutional and political history. But first, you need some proper grasp on basic concepts and principles.”

      You said: “That the key intellect behind the American Declaration of Independence—especially its point about “unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”—was Franklin, not Jefferson.”

      What are you talking about? Nobody said Jefferson was “the key intellect behind the American Declaration of Independence”. That’s a logical fallacy. Specifically, that’s a strawman fallacy. And I don’t think the blogger ever made that assertion. Kindly give us specific quotes in support of your assertion. The key intellect behind America’s individualism, which is the intellectual/philosophical base of America’s Declaration of Independence, were Thomas Paine, John Locke and the founding fathers themselves. I think the blogger discussed en-passant here the concept of rights — https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/sen-miriam-defensor-santiagos-rh-bill-illogic/ .

      You said: “The Hamiltonian National Banking system is not the predecessor of the Federal Reserve, as is popularly claimed by both Fed proponents alike, just as the National Bank of the United States was not based on the Bank of England model.”

      Nobody said something here about “the Hamiltonian National Banking system”! What are you talking about. READ the previous responses to your comment. Stop making red-herring, strawman arguments.

      You said: “There is much evidence available through the citations of my piece that makes a nearly nonarguable case Jefferson and Madison sided with the economic outlook of Mathew Carey and other Hamiltonian nationalists after the nation’s experience during the War of 1812.”

      Again strawman and red-herring. What are you talking about? What are you trying to argue there? I won’t let you make baseless assertions here without sticking to the topic. Learn the proper method of argumentation.

      In your response, we’d like to know how you understand individualism, which is the subject of your attack here.

      Prove your case that the U.S. constitutional republic was NOT founded on rabid “individualism” and laissez faire economics. AGAIN, no more strawman and red-herring arguments.

      • mjrowland permalink
        September 2, 2012 3:38

        Sorry, buddy, but I don’t think you understand my point.

        My point in saying that “Ayn Rand and other anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are either ignorant, lying, or both if they claim that the U.S. constitutional republic was founded on rabid so-called ‘individualism’ and laissez faire economics” is that:
        1.) What Objectivists, libertarians, the Austrian School, et al. claim is “individualism” misdefines what it means to believe in individual rights. My ideas on what individualism SHOULD mean is discussed in the essay I wrote on this very topic.
        2.) To claim that the U.S. Founding Fathers based their new republic on this misdefinition of individualism is a false one. The questions about the philosophical battle between those who more or less represent the Christian-Platonist tradition (e.g. Leibniz, Vattel, Franklin, et al.) and the Liberal-Aristotelian tradition (e.g. Mandeville, Locke, Jefferson) is a core one for understanding what ideas the U.S. is actually based on and is therefore far from being a red herring especially since Objectivists, et al. claim the U.S. is based on the latter tradition.
        3.) The 1787 U.S. Constitution is largely the product of an initiative led by Franklin and his circle of economic nationalists, which promoted economic policies that are anti-laissez faire, and would later be championed by Hamilton (who was also and active member of the Franklin circle). Later in their lives, Jefferson and Madison seem to have adjusted their views to concord with those of this Franklin grouping. This is also a core issue if one wishes to disprove that the U.S. is based on laissez faire.

        I hope that clears things up. I suggest you read my entire essay before responding again: http://romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/why-extremist-atheistic-capitalist-ideologues-are-just-as-evil-as-extremist-atheistic-communist-ideologues/

      • Jones Galt permalink
        September 2, 2012 3:38

        Here’s my reply to those points you made.

        1. I don’t think you understand individualism, therefore, you’re simply attacking a strawman. Tell me how you understand individualism. That’s actually my first question for you.

        2. Again, I don’t think you understand individualism. Same answer. You’re been raising too many strawman arguments and red-herring since your very first post.

        3. Read my first reply to your comment. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

      • September 11, 2012 3:38

        mjrowland,

        The leftist/Marxist overtones of that stupid, ill-researched blog of yours are showing…

  3. mjrowland permalink
    September 9, 2012 3:38

    Wow. Your inability to even attempt to listen and reflect upon what I’m saying only further proves my suspicion that Objectivism really is a religious cult.

    I clearly said that if you want to know how I understand and define individualism, read my essay.

    As for my assertions about how anti-statists spin American history, I provide evidence and citations for that in my essay. First read those before you accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about.

    • September 11, 2012 3:38

      This guy (mjrowland) loves to write kilo-metric claptrap that doesn’t make any sense. His blog is not even backed by facts. To claim that Ayn Rand advocated anarch0-capitalism is just dishonest and stupid. Also, to claim that America was based on Plato’s philosophy is just pure hogwash! LOL!

      He even claim that Austrian economics was somehow influenced by Nietzsche. What a lying moron! Except its ethics, Austrian economics was influenced by Kant who was despised by Rand.

      I don’t even know how he finished that blog without hurting his empty head 😉

  4. Jones Galt permalink
    September 10, 2012 3:38

    That’s both funny and pathetic. It’s very much evident you don’t know what you’re talking about. Read my previous replies to your idiotic arguments.

    First, you should tell me how you understand individualism and free market system. It seems that you don’t have any intention at all to answer this very simply query because you don’t have any idea what individualism and free market system are all about.

    I told you that the individualism and free market principles of the United States can be found in the Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers did not intend to build a “collectivist” nation. They built a federalist republican nation founded on the principles of individualism. And individualism rests on the principles of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

    I don’t give a damn whether some presidents of the United States departed from that ideal. What is very clear is that USA was founded as an individualist nation. And to refute this claim, you need to first understand the proper concept of individualism. Indeed, it’s very evident based on your previous responses that you don’t know what you’re talking about…

    • September 11, 2012 3:38

      The guy clearly doesn’t know the concepts of individualism and free market system. He’s simply pointing to Hamilton’s own views. Perhaps he thought Hamilton was the guy who built America lol! What a clueless twat! He doesn’t even know the CORRECT facts. His political and philosophical history of USA only exists in his empty brain.

  5. monk permalink
    November 16, 2012 3:38

    Actually, it was protectionism that led to success for the U.S. (which pirated heavily from Britain), and then later Japan, and after that the Asian “tigers” followed by China and Vietnam. They allowed some form of economic liberalization only much later, and only after they were able to strengthen their economies through protectionism.

Trackbacks

  1. UP Economists’ RH Paper = Emotionalism Plus Anti-Intellectualism « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Why Extremist, Atheistic, Capitalist Ideologues are Just as Evil as Extremist, Atheistic Communist Ones | Romulo's Advocate
  3. Ingrate, Mediocre Philippines | THE VINCENTON POST
  4. Ingrate, Mediocre Pinoys | THE VINCENTON POST
  5. Ingrate, Mediocre Filipinos | vincenton
  6. The Curious Case of a Pathological Lying Pro-Parliamentary Dum-Dum: His “Ceteris Paribus”, “Probabilistic Causality” Gibberish | vincenton
  7. The Last Betrayal of Dr. Jose Rizal | VINCENTON

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: