I saw on one of Kodiac's posts that he thought we should start over with the Articles of Confederation. I do not beleive that this would ever work. Sure, each state had absolute say in what went on, but a nation cannot function with a set of laws that makes it so that one state can prevent the wishes of the other states, no matter it's size. Also the national level government could not enforce anything, not even treaties. This is not the way to run a country, this way would make America split into 50 little countries the likes of which reside in Europe and Asia today. It is like a football team where all 11 players on the field are a captain and do not have to follow the playbook. You have 11 people running around in their own little part of the field and the other team comes and wipes them out. I personally think that what is nessecary is to start over with the Constitution. Sure, even a few changes could be made to it, such as making it harder to amend bills with riders and such. I know of only one true Confederation that worked in modern times and that was the Iriquios(sp?) Nation. And I don't want to hear that the US is a confederacy, it is not because the states do not actively participate in the governing of the country. Is there anyone out there that has some good things to say about the Articles of Confederation?
Articles of Confederation
- Thread starter striker3
- Start date
Of course there are good things. Centralized power was a great fear of many of the founders. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists debated for quite some time over whether or not the country needed or wanted federal control. Indeed, so strong was the opposition, without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would never have been ratified, as it would not have passed in the requisite number of states.
What makes you think our current gov't "works"? If it does, why are you here?
Rights are for individuals, not for teams, states, or countries. Strong federal gov't leads to tyranny. Every time. Check out "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek sometime. You may rethink your position on the benefits of central planning.
------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
What makes you think our current gov't "works"? If it does, why are you here?
Rights are for individuals, not for teams, states, or countries. Strong federal gov't leads to tyranny. Every time. Check out "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek sometime. You may rethink your position on the benefits of central planning.
------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
Ipecac,
No I do not think that our current gov't works, It has strayed to far from the Constitution to be able to work. My whole point was that the Articles of Confederation didn't work at all. Why have a set of rules to join together the states if those states do not have to follow or abide by those rules. It was just counter-productive. If we would have stayed with the Ariticles, then we would have reduced ourselves to interstate fighting as is being witnessed in other parts of the world today.
No I do not think that our current gov't works, It has strayed to far from the Constitution to be able to work. My whole point was that the Articles of Confederation didn't work at all. Why have a set of rules to join together the states if those states do not have to follow or abide by those rules. It was just counter-productive. If we would have stayed with the Ariticles, then we would have reduced ourselves to interstate fighting as is being witnessed in other parts of the world today.
striker3, could you please elaborate on how the Articles did not work at all? Under the constitution we had interstate fighting culminating in the Civil War. I'm not so sure that we would have been worse off under a Confederation of States. If you have points to the contrary, I'd really like to hear them. This is a topic that interests me.
The Articles of Confederation did not work in that individual states were inconsistent in matters of rights of a citizen, commerce (heavily taxed goods or trade tariffs if between the states), interstate travel, etc. Each state was a sovereignty which didn't observe the practices of another. No state need to heed the legislation of Congress and the President of Congress was one who, having no real authority, chaired meetings. Taxes imposed by Congress could be ignored as there was no means to collect it. States could refuse to impose it on their citizens or pay its fair share. Since taxes were small, there was no standing army of note and the British refused to evacuate their forts on the Great Lakes. Other threats to the nation were seen in the Spainards (who were allies during the revolution) and of course, the Native Americans. Foreign policy like trade or coping with the Barbary Pirates could not be addressed by a disjointed Congress which was hard pressed to develop and enforce treaties. The difficulties resulted in the convening of the Constitutional Convention. The end result was the creation of a Federal Government which was "chartered" under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,
Hmmm...come to think of it, perhaps we have gone full circle.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Hmmm...come to think of it, perhaps we have gone full circle.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Thanks Gary, the only thing that I can think of to add was that every state had an equal say, so it was concievable that the small states could block vote and deny the wishes of the larger states. The minority could block the majority that way...hmmm maybe we have come full circle...
Thank you, gentlemen for the education. On that point about small states having equal say, I wish it was that way now. Here in Alaska, outside interests have as much, if not more, say at the federal level on how our state is to run.
Obviously, the Articles were flawed, but perhaps the Constitution went too far towards centralizing power. It seems to me that clarifying certain issues, like tariff/import/exports, would go a long way toward making it workable. I guess what I'm saying is that returning power to the states is a huge step in the right direction.
Obviously, the Articles were flawed, but perhaps the Constitution went too far towards centralizing power. It seems to me that clarifying certain issues, like tariff/import/exports, would go a long way toward making it workable. I guess what I'm saying is that returning power to the states is a huge step in the right direction.
When the Constitution was adopted and the Articles of Confederation rejected, it was at an convention to MODIFY AND ALTER the Atricles of Confederation to address the problems cited by 4V50 Gary in his post. Many of the delegates refused to attend because they (Patrick Henry being one of them) feared that a total rejection of the Articles would take place and the framework for a central Federal goverment would be put in place.
The Declaration of Independence was signed by all attending that convention/meeting. The Constitition was not. Not all those attending wanted anything to do with an central goverment since the War of Independence was still fresh in their mind and the problems caused by the cnetral goverment in England.
Personally I think that the farmers SHOULD have won the Whiskey Rebellion and sent all the tax collectors to the wall. (the great-grandfathers of the BATF)
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited July 08, 1999).]
The Declaration of Independence was signed by all attending that convention/meeting. The Constitition was not. Not all those attending wanted anything to do with an central goverment since the War of Independence was still fresh in their mind and the problems caused by the cnetral goverment in England.
Personally I think that the farmers SHOULD have won the Whiskey Rebellion and sent all the tax collectors to the wall. (the great-grandfathers of the BATF)
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
[This message has been edited by Jim V (edited July 08, 1999).]
Poor Ipecac.
He just doesn't understand that someone living in extremely rural Alaska just absolutely must live under exactly the same rules, laws, ordnances, customs, religion, tax scheme, etc. as a bum living under a bridge in the Bronx.
Poor Ipecac.
----
Hey, Ipecac, You got room for a family of four up there? We got guns 'n ammo!
--The Flat-footed Stranger
He just doesn't understand that someone living in extremely rural Alaska just absolutely must live under exactly the same rules, laws, ordnances, customs, religion, tax scheme, etc. as a bum living under a bridge in the Bronx.
Poor Ipecac.
----
Hey, Ipecac, You got room for a family of four up there? We got guns 'n ammo!
--The Flat-footed Stranger
Jim V, have you read "The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith? And thanks for the info on the Consititutional Convention. The fact that some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence would not sign the Constitution should have been a glaring beacon of distress to all. Sigh.
Dennis, I got room for the guns'n'ammo. and maybe your daughters. Got pics?
------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
Dennis, I got room for the guns'n'ammo. and maybe your daughters. Got pics?
------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
Hey Ipecac, wait a minute! I thought you wanted to be adopted. Me and my guns are moving north so clear out a space for dear old Dad.
More seriously, not all the states ratified the Constitution either and initially only 11 did (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticutt, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, South Carolina, and Pennsylvannia). Rhode Island didn't sign and North Carolina signed ex-post facto and Washington became our first President.
Dad
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited July 08, 1999).]
More seriously, not all the states ratified the Constitution either and initially only 11 did (New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticutt, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, South Carolina, and Pennsylvannia). Rhode Island didn't sign and North Carolina signed ex-post facto and Washington became our first President.
Dad
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
[This message has been edited by 4V50 Gary (edited July 08, 1999).]
Looks like the old shack's gonna need another wing. Bring on the guns, Dad.
Can you guys recommend any good books on the Const. Conv? I have read the Federalist Papers, altho it's obvious I need to reread them, but I'm looking for a good history of the convention. Any pointers will be rewarded with bunk space upon arrival.
------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
Can you guys recommend any good books on the Const. Conv? I have read the Federalist Papers, altho it's obvious I need to reread them, but I'm looking for a good history of the convention. Any pointers will be rewarded with bunk space upon arrival.
------------------
"All I ask is equal freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
The Confederacy Argument was lost in the Civil War, Wasn't it? Until then, our Government operated only by consent of the people.
The Civil War was the last time anyone in power took seriously the argument that a Government governs only according to and by authority of a Social Contract, not just a Big Stick(a/k/a an Army).
In philosophical circles we call this the Lockean State of Nature vs. the Hobbesian State of Nature.
You can't have a Confederacy and a Social Contract again until you take away the Government's Big Stick.
Who's going to do that? The CSA couldn't. How would the citizens of our modern country do it? You can't oppose Tanks, F15's, Missles, Artillery, and Satellite Surveillance with small arms.
I vote for passive peaceful democratic resistence.
The Civil War was the last time anyone in power took seriously the argument that a Government governs only according to and by authority of a Social Contract, not just a Big Stick(a/k/a an Army).
In philosophical circles we call this the Lockean State of Nature vs. the Hobbesian State of Nature.
You can't have a Confederacy and a Social Contract again until you take away the Government's Big Stick.
Who's going to do that? The CSA couldn't. How would the citizens of our modern country do it? You can't oppose Tanks, F15's, Missles, Artillery, and Satellite Surveillance with small arms.
I vote for passive peaceful democratic resistence.
Ipecac, Why do you ask if I read L. Neil Smith's book, "THE PROBABILITY BROACH"? I don't see you as "Lucy"or "Clarissa", maybe someone from "GRISWOLD'S".
At least twice. Way more times than I have John Ross's book, "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES", which I have read 4 times.
If the members of TFL have not read Smith's book, it is in reprint (paperback) and the new edition contains material that the original publisher had removed.
Smith had several other books set with the same characters, "THE NAGASAKI VECTOR", "THE GALLATIN DIVERGENCE" and "THE VENUS BELT", these three are out of print as far as I can find out.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"
At least twice. Way more times than I have John Ross's book, "UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES", which I have read 4 times.
If the members of TFL have not read Smith's book, it is in reprint (paperback) and the new edition contains material that the original publisher had removed.
Smith had several other books set with the same characters, "THE NAGASAKI VECTOR", "THE GALLATIN DIVERGENCE" and "THE VENUS BELT", these three are out of print as far as I can find out.
------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
"If there be treachery, let there be jehad!"