https://www.utahsrepublic.org

edarrell:

At the far right you have 100% government, too. The narrator claims that Naziism is just another form of socialism — savaging history, politics and reality.

Somewhere in the middle of a spectrum, you'd have anarchy. That's no government. It's not an ideal in human experience (unless you like the world of “Mad Max”), and it doesn't make roads that work.

But trying to make a spectrum of “good” and “bad” simply reveals the problem: Governments of humans are not all one thing and nothing of another. Humans don't work that way.

Are you offering Ben Franklin as the “model Founder?” Do we get to adopt his irreligion, his advocacy of nudity, and other social views, as well?

edarrell:

Rather than say left is communism and right is fascism, a much better model that was presented is that the left is total government power, and the right side is anarchy with a sliding scale of how much power and influence government has over your life.

That's not a right-left scale that any historian or political scientist would recognize. Naziism was opposed to communism, yet both went off the rails united with totalitarianism. To claim that Hitler was a lefty is complete lunacy.

So, who is the guy who made that wacky video? Which Comedy Central program was he trying out for?

We don't want either end. A Republic rests in-between these two points, balancing limited government of necessary things and maximizing freedom for the people.

A good description of a democracy.

Franklin was a great man and there is no reason to tear him down.

Then don't. He was a great man, and he wasn't on your side.

If it wasn't for Franklin, we would not have won the Revolutionary War. His efforts with France funded the war and brought it to a close.

For about 4 years in his 20's he was a deist and then went to Christianity though he had some doubts as to Jesus' divinity. He was not irreligious and in a letter to Ezra Stiles (President of Yale) at the end of his life he wrote this:

“Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion.” (Smyth, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 10:84)

Why do you edit Franklin? On the one hand you claim he's a great man, but on the other hand you put things in his mouth and pen he did not write, and leave out essential things he did write and say.

Your distortions of the founders' words and ideas really tick me off, you know? If you had a good point, you wouldn't need to twist what they said and wrote. Here's that entire paragraph in the letter to his friend, Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale:

You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho' it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure. I shall only add respecting myself, that having experienced the Goodness of that Being, in conducting me prosperously thro' a long Life, I have no doubt of its Continuance in the next, tho' without the smallest Conceit of meriting such Goodness. My Sentiments in this Head you will see in the Copy of an old Letter enclosed, which I wrote in answer to one from a zealous Religionist whom I had relieved in a paralitic Case by Electricity, and who being afraid I should grow proud upon it, sent me his serious, tho' rather impertinent, Cautions. I send you also the Copy of another Letter, which will shew something of my Disposition relating to Religion. With great and sincere Esteem and Affection, I am, Dear Sir, Your obliged old Friend and most obedient humble Servant

B Franklin

[There is a good account of the letter and the period of his life, just a few weeks before his death, in Ronald W. Clark's biography of Franklin, p. 413]

Franklin was much the deist his entire life. He contributed to Christian ministries, and Jewish, and atheist — he was a staunch defender of Thomas Paine who was greatly reviled for his atheism, despite his great contributions to the American revolution. Franklin left home before getting deeply into any sect, and then never did (unless you count the work of Dr. Mesmer a religious sect).

You would do well to read Franklin's Autobiography, and follow it up with one of the very good volumes on his life, the one by Walter Isaacson, or Edmund Morris, or Ronald W. Clark.

It is pure pretense to contend Franklin was Christian. In one of his most famous pranks, at the height of dissension Franklin proposed to the delegates of the Constitutional Convention that they might consider opening their sessions with prayer. It would have been easy to do; several preachers and vestrymen were delegates, and any preacher, rabbi or other religious official in Philadelphia would have been happy to pray for free. But that wasn't Franklin's intention. He wished to put an end to the warring between factions each claiming to be Christian and having the high moral ground from God. The sight of the world's most famous deist or atheist proposing prayer embarrassed the delegates quite enough. The meeting was adjourned; some accounts say the motion died for lack of a second, some say it was voted down the next day, but all accounts agree that the delegates achieved the Great Compromise within a few days, and the convention was saved.

The joke wouldn't have worked from a Christian.

You try to steal the patriots as a fellow traveller in Christianity. That's dishonest, and unbecoming. Let's take them at their word, and take them as they were.

edarrell:

The traditional left-right model with communism on the left and fascism on the right is outdated. Total government vs. no government is a much better model to assign government systems to.

So, then, you think a strong-but-not-totalitarian communist government is qualitatively no different from a strong U.S. federal government. I think that's an obviously defective view, and I can't imagine why you'd subscribe to it. Any strong government with a democratic foundation is better than a strong government without a democratic foundation, in the long run (though it may offer problems in the short run.

Communism and Fascism both share atheism,

Not the French or Italian communists, who were Catholic, nor the Mormons who founded Orderville, Utah, who were Mormon. There is no inherent reason that any totalitarian government should be atheist, and through history, most have been closely tied to a religion.

The fascist governments of the German Third Reich, Mussolini's Italy, and Japan circa 1930 to 1945, were all religiously based.

I don't mean to seem rude, but have you ever studied history?

government control of production and resources,

Not true of Nazi Germany, nor fascist Japan in World War II, nor of Italy. There was a lot of interference from the government, but no nationalization. You might do well to study von Mises's graphic novel version of socialism. (I'd post a link, but when I do my posts go to your moderation cue — do you ever let posts out from there?)

. . . and control of the lives of citizens.

Again, I think you'd be hard put to find real examples. Not necesssarily so of fascist governments.

Anarchy at the other end would have none of this but also not provide protection for citizens. Therefore a republic of limited government is what the Framers settled on to give us the very best system of protecting personal rights and freedom.

You'd do well to study what the delegates to the Philadelphia convention actually used as models, and why. They did not discuss anarchy. They did not discuss any form of modern socialism, apart from the discussions of a monarchy. Among other things, they needed a strong central government in order to provide a framework for and protection of development. Specifically, Washington needed assurances he could sell his lands in the Ohio Valley, and that the settlers there could develop them. That required a strong national government of some sort, in order to settle and square the land rights and “dispose” of the lands.

The government settled on was republican in form, but also a lot less democratic than it has grown. Senators were elected by the state legislatures until the 17th Amendment; increasing the amount of democracy in governments in the U.S. was a chief goal of the Progressive Movement, which got that amendment passed, and pushed for the 19th Amendment as well (Women's Suffrage). They also pushed for initiative and referendum powers in the states, often successfully, short-circuiting the republican structure the founders created. Ironically, many of these democratic initiatives, like the disaster-causing Proposition 13 in California, are probably initiatives you like, and would never have been possible in a more republican structure.