0434 pc369 The Federalists and the Constitution

Bad Quaker Podcast
With Ben Stone

By Sheep For Sheep On Sheep

By Sheep For Sheep On Sheep

Who were the federalists, who were the anti-federalists, and should we defend the Constitution?

This entry was posted in All Podcasts, Bad Quaker and Taxes, Bad Quaker and the Constitution of The United States, History and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to 0434 pc369 The Federalists and the Constitution

  1. Slade says:

    Is there a revisionist history of Washington? There are so many Washington worshippers out there. If not, might be a noble project for someone.

    • Bad Quaker says:

      There’s nothing that I know of, but you’re right Slade, it would be an important project for someone.

  2. Sam says:

    Excellent podcast, Ben! It’s great to hear your voice again.

  3. Mark says:

    Jay, I love the term ” un – history “.

    I remember in the 4th or 5th grade hearing about George Washington and the cherry tree.

    Even at that age, I thought it was a ridiculous story. NOBODY is that good!

  4. Annors from Scania says:

    Regarding Hoppe who was discussed in this episode, it seems that he deliberately mixed away the difference between Eigentum (property) and Besitz (fief) when he reasons about the excellence of monarchy?


    • Bad Quaker says:

      This is true Annors.
      But you have to remember, Hoppe was talking about the motivation of the king or noble as opposed to the motivation of the politician. The king or nobleman imagines the property to be his own (in fief), including the people. He therefore has a reason to preserve and protect them, even if his reasoning is flawed. The elected politician has no motive other than to get re-elected and loot all he can get away with.
      So the actions of the actors are based on their perception of reality, not on the actual reality of what is right or wrong.

      • Annors from Scania says:

        But isn’t it a limping comparison? Kings were not the owners of the country’s goods at the time, but they had to satisfy an elite’s wishes to retain their power. They were thus far from what one might see as a sole shareholder of the country, because their position could only be obtained by purchasing the elites support.

  5. Jay says:

    I look forward to these un-history lessons; I’m reading the Federalist papers now.

  6. Benjamin says:

    Perfect timing! I was talking with my father about the Federalists just the other day but often explain things poorly. Ben Stone doesn’t have that problem.

Comments are closed.