What does this make me?

[Daistallia 2104]

A communist.

Does that word even mean anything anymore?

Sure, at least in General American English.

Communist: n. <ˈkɒmjʊˌnɪst> someone who's political opinions one disagrees with. See also: Nazi

[Silent Majority]

A communist.

Does that word even mean anything anymore?

Yes. Anyone who's not a Republican.

[Mike the Progressive]

Does that word even mean anything anymore?

Yes. Anyone who's not a Republican.

I was going more for anybody who is not a "red blooded American" but sure, ok.

[Frisivisia]

Yes. Anyone who's not a Republican.

I was going more for anybody who is not a "red blooded American" but sure, ok.

Red State American works too.

[Akrimistan]

These ideas you've read about has been active in and made for the beginning of the 19th century US....sooo the ideas been made for this centuries' historical-, social and political environment. So, I think you should implement these ideas or idea in your century's environment to see: Could it be a good idea today? Is it essential for freedom to know(to learn about) what freedom is?
These thoughts has been made againts the elitism -heralded by the British parlamentarism- to distribute the political power to the citizens.

Universally free education could be reached without the interference of the market or state/states/govt., too. Free organizations(non-profit or not-for-profit) founded and maintained by the people could cooperate with the state/states/fed.govt. to reach compromise about the Qs of education. These orgs could create alliances with each other within the whole country or within their 'state(s)'

I apologize for my bad english.

[Nadkor]

Universally free education could be reached without the interference of the market or state/states/govt., too. Free organizations(non-profit or not-for-profit) founded and maintained by the people could cooperate with the state/states/fed.govt. to reach compromise about the Qs of education. These orgs could create alliances with each other within the whole country or within their 'state(s)'

Aye, and they could do unicorn dissection in biology class.

[Mike the Progressive]

So what I'm asking is, do I support education throughout the whole country, or states's rights (and the ability of each state to allow free education for all it's citizens)?

I don't know if Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Democrats meant universal education for the whole country or for each state to decide, I never cared for Jefferson, and Jackson, though an interesting character, was not one of my more favorite presidents. But I think it's safe to say that there needs to be some basic form of education for all, if for any reason but to give them a basic knowledge of the nation so that they may survive in it. Something even Friedman advocated for.

[Threlizdun]

What the hell are you talking about? The left is anti-statist in nature.

You anarchists really need to stop trying to appropriate everything for your own cause. The left can be statist or anti-statist.

I have great difficulty seeing how support of violence, slavery, and class distinctions can be considered a legitimate representation of the left. Some have certainly been inspired by the left to advocate such nonsense, though it is just that, utter nonsense. They are simply individuals who somehow through the motivation of freedom come to support tyranny.

[Conserative Morality]

I have great difficulty seeing how support of violence, slavery, and class distinctions can be considered a legitimate representation of the left.

I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how any of those three are forbidden to the left.

Oh, right, it's because people like you define the left rather... uniquely. Generally as 'Whatever my ideology is'.

[EnragedMaldivians]

You anarchists really need to stop trying to appropriate everything for your own cause. The left can be statist or anti-statist.

I have great difficulty seeing how support of violence, slavery, and class distinctions can be considered a legitimate representation of the left. Some have certainly been inspired by the left to advocate such nonsense, though it is just that, utter nonsense. They are simply individuals who somehow through the motivation of freedom come to support tyranny.

The left and right dichotomy as a part of political discourse developed during the context of the French Revolution; members of the National Assembly that wanted to abolish the monarchy tended to be seated on the left side of the room, whereas those that wanted to preserve the monarchy sat on the right.

Hence it came to be convention that being on the left means favouring a change from the status quo, whereas being on the right means favouring preserving it. Left and Right are relative to whatever is a country's status quo, and they don't describe default ideological principles in of themselves.