More to the point, "liberty" in this case meaning privatizing and consolidating value created by underclass laborers into the hands of plutocrats. One oughtn't expect much else from a class of people whose principle grievances at the time of revolution were the revocation of land grants, being expected to pay for foreign wars they started, and having their illicit side gigs undermined by tax cuts when Parliament figured out EIC wasn't turning enough profit due to over-taxation.I can accept that Liberty was a goal of the founding fathers...
I mean, after all there were genuine leftists among those who would be considered founding fathers. What was made of their legacies in the long run? I don't see any bougie douchebags on Broadway rapping about universal basic income, progressive taxation and generational inheritance taxes, radical land redistribution, free public college, and (accounting for inflation) the most expansive and cohesive social welfare system the West would have ever seen. But when it comes to serial philanderer right-wing kooks who owed their entire careers to nepotism, married into money, did very little of note on their own and rather took credit for the work of other, smarter and greater men than he...?
Chattel slavery was simply cheaper and easier to preserve than serfdom in an era of near-constant peasant revolts, and wage slavery and convict labor were cheaper and easier to preserve than chattel slavery in mercantilist and industrial economies. The only difference is a matter of degree, and upon which parties blame for mass suffering is misdirected.
Not really, though.I think it's good that the understanding of the word liberty changed. It shows growth
Last edited: