These arguments really only hold water in the face of ignorance–no one is ever entirely consistent, and if you think so, it is only because you have not yet heard of their inconsistencies.

Good luck trying to find the “universal” Libertarian, or whatever you’re after.

Meanwhile, I’ll attempt questions that have a better chance of being answered, like whether God exists or not.

These arguments really only hold water in the face of ignorance–no one is ever entirely consistent, and if you think so, it is only because you have not yet heard of their inconsistencies.

Good luck trying to find the “universal” Libertarian, or whatever you’re after.

Meanwhile, I’ll attempt questions that have a better chance of being answered, like whether God exists or not.

It’s true that Hamilton argued for a stronger central government at the Convention, but when he didn’t get it, he still argued stridently for ratification anyway. There is just no way that he could have written the Federalist Papers with the Constitution’s author had he favored the monarchical form of government his detractors claim he did.

Hamilton didn’t want a Bill of Rights; he wanted it clear that by addressing only those rights bestowed upon the Federal government, all other rights not mentioned were given to the states themselves, an argument which could have been made by Jefferson himself.

It’s indisputable that Hamilton wanted a stronger central government, but I’ve found no proof that he wanted what we have today: a federal government which uses the commerce clause to essentially steal rights from the states whenever it sees fit. Hamilton was a strong proponent of Madison’s creation, and he made articulate arguments in the Federalist Papers of the virtues of a more balanced system of government.