Of Course America’s Too Big to Govern

VTRman

Senior Member
Well, a lot of his contemporaneous colleagues didn't think that about him.;)
Wretches abound and always have. A lot of our contemporaneous colleagues think Obama, Clinton, Comey and Mueller are stellar folks.
Whether our system was designed to become what it has become, and I think it was, the fact that it has failed at limiting government is inarguable, and well meaning citizens stand no chance against well placed conspirators.
 
Don't get me wrong. I believe Aaron Burr killing Hamilton in their duel was one of several saving graces for our country but to say all the federalists were secret evil tyrants with designs against their countrymen just isn't so.

And once again I reject the notion we are where we are because of the Constn, federalism and federalists. We are where we are because we the people allowed it, plain and simple.
So you think the criticisms leveled in Brutus I weren't valid? The points made were based primarily on the structure of the proposed government. History has played out exactly as they warned it would and it's done so precisely through the expansive powers that they took issue with. Their problem was with the blueprint itself.

If an architect gives you a blueprint and another points out the flaws in them and you build it according to the blueprint and then the failures predicted become reality you don't say we need to go back and rebuild according to the same blueprint. It might be time to take heed and correct the problems that the second architect told you about from the very beginning. Whether the flaws were intended or not matters little at that point. We can speculate on the intent of Madison and Hamilton and Morris and others. I've come to think some were more knave and others were more fool. In either case they've proven to be the inferior of men like Patrick Henry and George Mason.
 
Wretches abound and always have. A lot of our contemporaneous colleagues think Obama, Clinton, Comey and Mueller are stellar folks.
Whether our system was designed to become what it has become, and I think it was, the fact that it has failed at limiting government is inarguable, and well meaning citizens stand no chance against well placed conspirators.
I wonder if the federalists could be here and see the way history would play out what if any changes they would make? It's an interesting question to speculate on.
 
Thread starter #24
So you think the criticisms leveled in Brutus I weren't valid? The points made were based primarily on the structure of the proposed government. History has played out exactly as they warned it would and it's done so precisely through the expansive powers that they took issue with. Their problem was with the blueprint itself.

If an architect gives you a blueprint and another points out the flaws in them and you build it according to the blueprint and then the failures predicted become reality you don't say we need to go back and rebuild according to the same blueprint. It might be time to take heed and correct the problems that the second architect told you about from the very beginning. Whether the flaws were intended or not matters little at that point. We can speculate on the intent of Madison and Hamilton and Morris and others. I've come to think some were more knave and others were more fool. In either case they've proven to be the inferior of men like Patrick Henry and George Mason.
In this case it does not matter what design the architect presents, either perfect or deeply flawed. The main point is men are deeply flawed and so far in the annals of recorded human history no government conceived has lasted and not ultimately devolved into tyranny. Some just took longer than others to get there and some tyrants and forms of tyranny lasted longer than others once they took over.

Your argument is about which road is taken and the mode of transportation to the tyranny. My argument is the tyranny itself and it's cause which has little to do with the mode of transportation or the course taken to get there. In the end all the trains arrive at the same station and none of the passengers enjoyed the ride.
 
In this case it does not matter what design the architect presents, either perfect or deeply flawed. The main point is men are deeply flawed and so far in the annals of recorded human history no government conceived has lasted and not ultimately devolved into tyranny. Some just took longer than others to get there and some tyrants and forms of tyranny lasted longer than others once they took over.

Your argument is about which road is taken and the mode of transportation to the tyranny. My argument is the tyranny itself and it's cause which has little to do with the mode of transportation or the course taken to get there. In the end all the trains arrive at the same station and none of the passengers enjoyed the ride.
If that's your view then why bother with any political preference at all? Entropy will win out regardless so let's just not concern ourselves with it.
 
Thread starter #26
If that's your view then why bother with any political preference at all? Entropy will win out regardless so let's just not concern ourselves with it.
Entropy always wins out because all things tend towards entropy ultimately.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution that could be fixed otherwise. Do you think you'll get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to get rid of the general welfare clause? Ain't happenin' in this lifetime bra.

The Constn is specific. It gives the federal government authority to do only 18 things and through the 9 & 10 A's it makes it crystal clear that's the end of the line and the rest of the power and authority is reserved to the states or the people.

Even if you could get a ConCon and everybody would sing Kumbaya and come up with the perfect governing document that absolutely restricted the federal government no matter what how long do you think it would last? The Supremes would come up with another Marbury v Madison or there would be another Whiskey Rebellion and we'd be off to the races just like now.

In order to stop the downhill race to tyranny it's up to the people and only the people to preserve their liberty with the knowledge the people in government are there because on balance they seek dominion over the rest of us, the governing document be hanged. The people of 1800 were far less trustful of their government than we are today and the government of 1800 deserved considerably more trust than our government of today. We should be poised for violent overthrow of it if it will not bend to our will, but we don't even know what our collective will is. State nullification seems to be the order of the day and that's going to work until it doesn't work anymore.

But I didn't say stop advocating and pushing for true federalism with a federal government's intrusion into our lives much reduced. If I could see that before I die I'd die a happy man.
 
Entropy always wins out because all things tend towards entropy ultimately.

There is nothing wrong with the Constitution that could be fixed otherwise. Do you think you'll get 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states to get rid of the general welfare clause? Ain't happenin' in this lifetime bra.

The Constn is specific. It gives the federal government authority to do only 18 things and through the 9 & 10 A's it makes it crystal clear that's the end of the line and the rest of the power and authority is reserved to the states or the people.

Even if you could get a ConCon and everybody would sing Kumbaya and come up with the perfect governing document that absolutely restricted the federal government no matter what how long do you think it would last? The Supremes would come up with another Marbury v Madison or there would be another Whiskey Rebellion and we'd be off to the races just like now.

In order to stop the downhill race to tyranny it's up to the people and only the people to preserve their liberty with the knowledge the people in government are there because on balance they seek dominion over the rest of us, the governing document be hanged. The people of 1800 were far less trustful of their government than we are today and the government of 1800 deserved considerably more trust than our government of today. We should be poised for violent overthrow of it if it will not bend to our will, but we don't even know what our collective will is. State nullification seems to be the order of the day and that's going to work until it doesn't work anymore.

But I didn't say stop advocating and pushing for true federalism with a federal government's intrusion into our lives much reduced. If I could see that before I die I'd die a happy man.
Which one do I circle for "none of the above"? As governments go I'd give the US const a B+. That's because the antifederalists got the BoR added and because I'm feeling generous today. There are better alternatives and worse alternatives.

Since we are talking about exercising our right to alter or abolish our government let me just start out by saying I'm not interested in anything that involves being subjected to democratic governance with Californians and Yankees. That's a non-starter. That pretty much rules out any turning back the clock on the current constitution and rules out a convention to draft a new one. It rules out expecting the current government to play nice and do the right thing.

I'm not interested in federalism and have serious doubts about a loose confederation of sovereign states.

My preference would be disunion and decentralization. I want no part of sharing a government with the people of California or New York. I'm all for them getting their own way in their territory. Just don't subject me to it. State nullification is a good start. It's a step in the right direction. And no need to stop at the state level. Maybe if the central government eventually collapses of its own weight and becomes more and more ignored a process for peaceful secession could be put in place. At the state level at a minimum. If counties can acquire independence even better. Crazy perhaps but the current system is untenable and becoming more so as time goes on.
 
I would like a smaller government but have some concerns with that also.

When the Country fractures, who will control the military that has policed the World for the past half century?

What force will prevent China from swallowing the pieces?
 
Thread starter #29
I would like a smaller government but have some concerns with that also.

When the Country fractures, who will control the military that has policed the World for the past half century?

What force will prevent China from swallowing the pieces?
Anarchists have no time to devote to such minor details.;):bounce:
 

VTRman

Senior Member
Yeah, 'cause we sold 'em the rope with which they will hang us.

Smell the fear.
What a compelling argument to continue to put up with an overarching, criminal, tyrannical, out of control government.
 
Thread starter #32
Which one do I circle for "none of the above"? As governments go I'd give the US const a B+. That's because the antifederalists got the BoR added and because I'm feeling generous today. There are better alternatives and worse alternatives.


I'm not interested in federalism and have serious doubts about a loose confederation of sovereign states.
Well, federalism is what you got and the overwhelming majority of the people in this country are mostly comfortable with it.
 

PopPop

Senior Member
Which one do I circle for "none of the above"? As governments go I'd give the US const a B+. That's because the antifederalists got the BoR added and because I'm feeling generous today. There are better alternatives and worse alternatives.

Since we are talking about exercising our right to alter or abolish our government let me just start out by saying I'm not interested in anything that involves being subjected to democratic governance with Californians and Yankees. That's a non-starter. That pretty much rules out any turning back the clock on the current constitution and rules out a convention to draft a new one. It rules out expecting the current government to play nice and do the right thing.

I'm not interested in federalism and have serious doubts about a loose confederation of sovereign states.

My preference would be disunion and decentralization. I want no part of sharing a government with the people of California or New York. I'm all for them getting their own way in their territory. Just don't subject me to it. State nullification is a good start. It's a step in the right direction. And no need to stop at the state level. Maybe if the central government eventually collapses of its own weight and becomes more and more ignored a process for peaceful secession could be put in place. At the state level at a minimum. If counties can acquire independence even better. Crazy perhaps but the current system is untenable and becoming more so as time goes on.
You are applying geographical boundaries to philosophical differences, that doesn't solve our problem.
About half the population, nation wide are socialist or Communist. They tend to be concentrated in urban areas. Atlanta is almost as bad as California.
 
Thread starter #34
You are applying geographical boundaries to philosophical differences, that doesn't solve our problem.
About half the population, nation wide are socialist or Communist. They tend to be concentrated in urban areas. Atlanta is almost as bad as California.
He's probably thinking Idaho, Montana or Alaska.
 
Top