What is the greatest threat to our liberty? Central government. What is the driving cause behind our deficits and debt? Central government. Those are by far the two biggest issues we face today as Americans. Did I forget about a terrorist threat or a rogue nation with a nuke? No, but they aren’t the same. Terrorists may hit us, and while that will always be horrific, it will never bring America down. Neither is a nuke a practical threat. Any nation capable of launching enough to take us down would meet the same fate. A rogue nation that launched one, assuming it wasn’t intercepted, would be obliterated in response. Our known and direct threats are to our rights and our property and the federal government is behind both.

What is the solution? Based upon think tanks, economists (with the obvious exception of Keynesian inspired), bloggers, talk shows and even responses I’ve received to my posts, it is to elect true conservatives and get back to the Constitution. I disagree for several reasons. Let’s take electing true conservatives. Can they survive an ascent through party ranks while retaining principle? Remember, the establishment runs the leadership of both major parties and controls all pivotal appointments. A reformer from with-in is a threat to both parties.

What about getting back to the Constitution? For that, we must consider an even larger question. Why does the Constitution exist? Was it in response to our victory in the Revolutionary War? No. The Treaty of Paris ending the Revolutionary War didn’t occur until 1783 years after the Constitution was ratified. Was it to protect our natural rights after declaring our independence from Great Britain? No. Of course, the Declaration of Independence was passed just after a year into the Revolutionary War which began in 1775.

The Constitution came to be to protect the power of the State. Yes, it’s true. We already had the Articles of Confederation in place which placed the emphasis on the rights of the people and more power to the State’s with a very limited Federal Government. For various reasons, the Articles failed and the response was essentially to start from scratch and draft the Constitution. History shows us that they went too far in promoting the State and a Bill of Rights was required to protect the people’s liberty.

So why do I disagree? Because when you review the events and the documents of the era, we see a clear divide between those advancing the power of the State and those who promote liberty. The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Bill of Rights, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, the Anti-Federalist Papers. They all focused on the natural rights of man and a power balance in government favoring the State’s. The Constitution prior to The Bill Of Rights and the Federalist Papers supporting it were titled in favor of a strong central government as a necessity. The Federalist’s won out and the groundwork was laid for the sustained growth of the power of the State at the expense of our liberty. So when I hear ‘get back to the Constitution’, I say we don’t need to return to a structure that favors central government over liberty. We need to change the Constitution, as it was designed to be, to restore our liberty to the highest priority.

When I call for the New Articles of Confederation, I mean to strengthen our liberty through the Constitutional process, not to do away with it. I wonder how many have ever read The Articles of Confederation or the Anti-Federalist papers? Anyone with any level of concern has read the Constitution at one time or another and maybe even read some of the Federalist Papers, The Bill of Rights and of course The Declaration of Independence. Here then are The Articles of Confederation.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, did, on the 15th day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia in the words following, viz.

“Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New-hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode-island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia”.

Article I.The Stile of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united states, or either of them. If any Person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, – or other high misdemeanor in any state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence. Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.

Article V. For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state, to recal its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year. No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven Members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind. Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act as members of the committee of the states. In determining questions in the united states in Congress assembled, each state shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

Article VI. No state, without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference agreement, alliance or treaty with any King prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor shall the united states in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the united states in congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the united states in congress assembled can be consulted: nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the united states in congress assembled, shall determine otherwise.

Article VII. When land-forces are raised by any state for the common defence, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each state respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

Article VIII. All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint. The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states in congress assembled.

Article IX. The united states in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article–of sending and receiving ambassadors–entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities, whatsoever–of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the united states shall be divided or appropriated–of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace–appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The united states in congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a petition to congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as congress shall direct, shall in the presence of congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each state, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the cause shall be tried, –well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection or hope of reward: –provided also, that no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different states. The united states in congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective states–fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united states–regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated–establishing or regulating post offices from one state to another, throughout all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing thro’ the same as may be requisite to defray the expences of the said office–appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the united states, excepting regimental officers–appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the united states–making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The united states in congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of congress, to be denominated “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of one delegate from each state; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction–to appoint one of their number to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expences to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the united states, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted,–to build and equip a navy–to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such state; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloth, arm and equip them in a soldier like manner, at the expence of the united states; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and quipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled: But if the united states in congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other state should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled.

The united states in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expences necessary for the defence and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united states, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled. The congress of the united states shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the united states, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six Months, and shall publish the Journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any question shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates of a state, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several states.

Article X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states in congress assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states in the congress of the united states assembled is requisite.

Article XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.

Article XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed and debts contracted by, or under the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united states, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.

Article XIII. Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the third year of the independence of America.

There were approximately 85 essays written under the titles Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution and 85 as well under the Anti-Federalist category dissenting. As I said, I’ll bet most have never read an Anti-Federalist Paper. You can read them all here. It’s required reading if you’re a supporter of liberty. So many of the fears they set forth about an oppressive central government have come to bear. After all, the Founders understood human nature and the weaknesses of man as well as anyone. However, in the 1770’s, we feared an overseas threat more so than one here at home? Sound eerily like today? Even though we had just broken free of the bondage of a Monarch, we went ahead and installed the framework for one here at home in the form of our Constitution empowering the State at the expense of the people’s liberty.

So no, I don’t just want to return to the Constitution. I want to return to liberty. If we don’t, America won’t die tomorrow as some fear. It will just become America, the less free, each and every day. Hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes. We need to learn the lessons as to why The Articles of Confederation failed, which are now well-known, and incorporate the changes to the Constitution necessary to place liberty above all. That’s why I support funding the Federal Government through the State’s. You will never succeed in limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government without it.

My thinking is dismissed out of hand by many because it doesn’t conform to the narrative today. I ask you who isn’t conforming for it was exactly this thinking during the Second Continental Congress that wanted a very limited central government and valued liberty above all. This is where we must get back to prior to what liberty was squandered in the Constitution itself. Our illustrious leader in the White House considers the Constitution to be merely a charter of negative liberties. He interprets it to mean that it limits government without considering what it must to do on our behalf. This type of thinking is perilous to liberty.

The one constant regardless of the party in power is the growth of government. If you seek to enact permanent change to restore liberty, you’ll have to account for the weaknesses inherent in the Constitution and consider what is required to change it. It will have to come from the will of the people. That will take an awakening by Americans regardless of party loyalty who can find common ground in the interest of liberty. We’ll always have differences in ideology about how best to govern, but if we can’t unite to restore our liberty, we’ll have nothing left to fight about when the State controls all of our lives.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “The New Articles of Confederation

  1. That’s ridiculous, the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, which is why they were repealed. Returning to them would make things even worse.

    What we need is a strong central government by the people and for the people.

  2. What we need is a strong central government by the people and for the people

    Dream on. Never had one and never will. I also never called for a return to the AOC, only to the limitations it places on a central government. History is littered with examples of failed strong, central governments. It is completely irrational to think you can have one that exists for the people as it is inherently created to benefit those with power and influence.

  3. How do you explain places like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, which have strong, central governments, very low corruption levels, very high human development and very happy people? There ARE examples of countries with strong central governments which are doing very well, you just choose to ignore them.

  4. Ignore them? No. Just don’t wish to live there for one. Why not give equitable examples to the U.S.? We have corporations with revenues exceeding the economies of the countries you cite. Those countries are akin in size to a small U.S. state which operates just fine without an overpowering central government. Give me an example of a non-socialist country that has a strong, central government that operates FOR the people without the corruptive influences.

    Look, if you want a socialist utopia with excessively high tax burdens and state-controlled industry, help yourself. It’s not America nor what it was founded on. I choose liberty and opportunity. I don’t hate capitalism, rather I embrace it. I don’t support crony-capitalism which is why government must be strictly constrained.

    There’s nothing wrong with people like yourself that promote a welfare state. If one is willing to accept the trade-off for TRUE liberty, then good for you. The problem we run into is when the lines get blurred between free market, capitalist societies and that of socialism. Hybrids don’t work, it’s one or the other.

  5. “We have corporations with revenues exceeding the economies of the countries you cite”
    Of course, the US is a much, much larger country.

    “Those countries are akin in size to a small U.S. state which operates just fine without an overpowering central government.”
    Not really, those countries could have further subdivisions.

    “Give me an example of a non-socialist country that has a strong, central government that operates FOR the people without the corruptive influences.”
    Nordic countries aren’t socialist, they are social democratic, which means they acknowledge the fact that unrestrained capitalism does not work.

    “Look, if you want a socialist utopia with excessively high tax burdens and state-controlled industry, help yourself. It’s not America nor what it was founded on. I choose liberty and opportunity. I don’t hate capitalism, rather I embrace it. I don’t support crony-capitalism which is why government must be strictly constrained.”

    You want freedom? You mean like being able to marry someone if you’re gay? Or have an abortion without religious freaks telling you it’s “killing?”
    You want opportunity? It’s funny, because those countries I mentioned have both lower inequality and higher income mobility than the US.

    “There’s nothing wrong with people like yourself that promote a welfare state. If one is willing to accept the trade-off for TRUE liberty, then good for you. The problem we run into is when the lines get blurred between free market, capitalist societies and that of socialism. Hybrids don’t work, it’s one or the other.”

    What liberty? The liberty to die if you can’t afford healthcare? The liberty not to have the opportunity to get good education if you’re poor? Cut the “liberty” crap, you can be just as free in Nordic countries as in the US (actually even more, considering the REAL separation between Church and State that exists there). Yes, you pay more taxes, but you also get better services for less than you would have to pay a private company.

    And actually, hybrids DO work. It’s foolish to say that the market is always better or that the state is always better. There are things the market does better and things the government does better (healthcare, schools, transportation). This is reality. Pure capitalism has never and will never work (nor will pure communism for that matter).

  6. Cut the “liberty” crap

    What you call crap is freedom. The problem with your ideology is always the same. You need me. You need my tax money to pay for what you see as guaranteed rights. Your demands for healthcare, education, housing, etc. etc. need someone else to pay for it. Sorry, that’s not liberty or freedom or individuality when I can’t do with my personal property as I choose. I want nothing at all from you.

    Rather than go around and around anymore, why not just ask yourself this. Why do you stay? If America is so bad and your Nordic utopia is so great, why on earth would you ever want to stay? After all, America still is a Judeo-Christian based country that you obviously hate based upon your social values. In fact, you even claim to be more free in Nordic countries. What rational person would stay? Reminds me of the ultra-rich like Warren Buffet running around demanding he pay more taxes when he merely has to write the check to the Treasury to ease his conscience. Makes no sense.

    At any rate, thanks for commenting. I hope you find your utopia somewhere, it just won’t be in America.

  7. “Sorry, that’s not liberty or freedom or individuality when I can’t do with my personal property as I choose.”

    This statement is based on the assumption that every single penny you make you make due to your own hard work, completely ignoring the ways government contributes. The public schools we go to, the roads we use, the clean air we breathe, the safety we enjoy – it all comes from the government. The closer you get to anarchy, the worse things get.

    “Reminds me of the ultra-rich like Warren Buffet running around demanding he pay more taxes when he merely has to write the check to the Treasury to ease his conscience. Makes no sense.”

    Actually, it makes a LOT of sense, because you are completely missing the point of what he’s saying. It’s not about easing his conscience, it’s about unfairness.

    “Rather than go around and around anymore, why not just ask yourself this. Why do you stay? ”

    Because running away is not an answer. America needs to be fixed, not fled from.
    Besides, there’s no room for all those who think like me in Nordic countries.

    There are no utopias, it’s just that some countries are more economically sensible than others.
    Norway has a surplus, while the US is drowning in debt.

  8. This statement is based on the assumption that every single penny you make you make due to your own hard work, completely ignoring the ways government contributes. The public schools we go to, the roads we use, the clean air we breathe, the safety we enjoy – it all comes from the government

    That’s completely ignorant. Nothing comes from the government. The government has no money. Everything the government spends first came from the taxpayer. They are merely the middleman.

    it’s about unfairness

    Again, more ignorance. Government CANNOT determine fairness. Only the two parties involved in any transaction can determine whether they were treated ‘fairly’. No third party can tell any two parties what is fair or unfair.

    You say America needs to be ‘fixed’, but who’s idea of fixed? The Constitution is our rule of law and if enough people don’t like it, that’s what we change. I’m no different. I’m advocating for changing the Constitution as I want less government. You and I differ because you see government as the solution and I see it as the problem.

  9. “That’s completely ignorant. Nothing comes from the government. The government has no money. Everything the government spends first came from the taxpayer. They are merely the middleman.”

    Your point being? Sometimes a middleman is needed. What would our country be like if there were no public schools, cops, firefighters, highways? You are crazy if you think the private sector could provide those kinds of services.

    “Again, more ignorance. Government CANNOT determine fairness. Only the two parties involved in any transaction can determine whether they were treated ‘fairly’. No third party can tell any two parties what is fair or unfair.”

    Problem is, sometimes even though a party realizes it’s getting screwed and treated unfairly, they can do nothing, and a third party has to intervene.

  10. Your point being?

    Based upon your comment, it appears you see me as an anarchist, which I am not. The post is geared toward shifting the balance of power in government from a strong, central government back to state and local government. So I don’t oppose a ‘middleman’, I oppose a broad, over-arching government as much as possible. Government represents constituents best at the lowest possible level.

    When it comes to fairness, sure a third party is required at times. So we have arbitrators or counselors or Judges or the like. However, fairness by governance doesn’t work. You can’t paint in such broad strokes. You may like the idea of high taxes in exchange for more public services but others do not. Government dictating fairness doesn’t allow for those individual preferences. That’s exactly why government works better at the lowest possible level. If I don’t agree with the laws and policies of a state or locality, I can move elsewhere. When it’s done at the Federal level, my only recourse is to leave the country. Yes, I realize I can vote and lobby politicians with my views, but you’ll always stand a better chance of actually enacting that change at a lower level of government.

    If you can show examples of where the individual receives better representation from a central government over a lower level, I’d like to hear it. If you’re lucky enough to be on the same side of broad legislation that you agree with, that’s great. However, if you’re not, and that’s usually a very significant percentage of the population, how do you justify it?

  11. I don’t doubt that local governments do a better job of representing individuals, but there are things that cannot be left to them. Take Wall Street regulations for instance. Wall Street messed up, and EVERYONE is paying the consequences. So the federal government has to step in and regulate Wall Street.
    Or gay marriage. A homosexual in New York is no different from one in Texas, so why should the Texan be denied the right to marry?
    Or take healthcare, which should be a right, as is in every single other developed country. Why should a poor person in Mississippi go bankrupt because they can’t afford healthcare?

    The articles of Confederation were a failure. The constitution is just fine, and anything wrong with it can be amended. For the United States to exist, there can’t be dramatic differences between the standard of living in states. You can’t have people being denied their rights in one state but not in the other, kids being brainwashed at school in one state but not in the other. That would never work unless you set limitations on immigration from one state to the next, and then you might as well just divide the US in 50 different countries.

  12. Government shouldn’t be involved in the business of marriage. Period. Heterosexual, gay, doesn’t matter. What business is it of theirs as to the union of two people?

    Wall Street and Washington are as in bed together as it gets. Washington has enabled the banksters to exploit the American people. The loopholes, subsidies, insider trading, derivatives, tax credits, bailouts, bubbles, etc. all start in D.C.. That in no way excuses Wall Street from capitalizing on the game and making their trillions of dollars, but why on earth would we task the enablers with cleaning it up?

    Healthcare is not a right anywhere on the planet. Society may deem it important enough to ensure all its citizens get it, but it isn’t a right. If your logic were valid, why wouldn’t everyone be provided with all of life’s necessities? Housing, food, water, clothing, transportation, money, etc.? Answer, because someone else has to pay for it. How unfair. Why should anyone else be burdened with my needs? I’m not in any way entitled to the fruits of another’s labors. Do I prefer all humans are charitable and will willingly support their brethren? Of course. A moral and ethic people will do just that. But again, government should not be the judge and jury as to our obligations to one another.

    The AOC’s were a failure. I don’t disagree. I also have not advocated a return to it, rather I promote just what you stated, amending the Constitution. If the Constitution is just fine, why is violated all the time by both major parties and all three branches? We already have dramatic differences between the states. The per capita income in D.C. is over twice that of Mississippi. The unemployment rate in Nevada is four times that of North Dakota. We have wide variances in standards of living, schools, infrastructure, debt, employment, social structure, you name it.

    We can keep going back and forth if you wish, but I have found that once people have established their mindset of the role of government as it relates to liberty, it doesn’t generally change much. Do we change over long periods of time? Everyone does of course, to some extent. But taken in context with the wide, wide range of subjects we cover, our themes are common. You want central government in that role and I do not.

  13. “Government shouldn’t be involved in the business of marriage. Period. Heterosexual, gay, doesn’t matter. What business is it of theirs as to the union of two people?”

    Who’s going to give legal validity to marriage if not the government?

    “Wall Street and Washington are as in bed together as it gets. Washington has enabled the banksters to exploit the American people. The loopholes, subsidies, insider trading, derivatives, tax credits, bailouts, bubbles, etc. all start in D.C.. That in no way excuses Wall Street from capitalizing on the game and making their trillions of dollars, but why on earth would we task the enablers with cleaning it up?”

    Washington enabled them to do what they wanted by eliminating all regulations. I want a strong, honest government. You seem to think it’s not possible for the government to be any better than it is right now, I say look around, it is in some countries.

    “Healthcare is not a right anywhere on the planet. Society may deem it important enough to ensure all its citizens get it, but it isn’t a right. If your logic were valid, why wouldn’t everyone be provided with all of life’s necessities? Housing, food, water, clothing, transportation, money, etc.? Answer, because someone else has to pay for it. How unfair. Why should anyone else be burdened with my needs? I’m not in any way entitled to the fruits of another’s labors. Do I prefer all humans are charitable and will willingly support their brethren? Of course. A moral and ethic people will do just that. But again, government should not be the judge and jury as to our obligations to one another.”

    It IS a right in those countries, a government-given right.

    What you don’t seem to realize is that universal healthcare is run by the government because it is ultimately cheaper for everyone to do so than to rely on private insurance. Just look at the administrative costs of Medicare vs private insurance in the US. You could pay $8000 a year for private insurance or $4000 a year in taxes for government run healthcare, which is just as good, if not better, considering its intent is not to make money.

    And you can’t equate healthcare to housing, food and water. It’s not the slippery slope you make it appear to be. It’s kinda like saying “well, if we shrink the government, we might as well eliminate it completely.” It doesn’t make any sense.
    A healthy country where people don’t go bankrupt because of healthcare ultimately benefits EVERYONE. For instance, crime rates are lower, obesity rates would also be lower. So even if you do pay for someone else’s healthcare, you can’t say you don’t benefit from it, at least indirectly.

    “If the Constitution is just fine, why is violated all the time by both major parties and all three branches? ”
    The problem is not the constitution, it’s the politicians. Changing it so dramatically won’t change a thing.

    “We already have dramatic differences between the states. The per capita income in D.C. is over twice that of Mississippi. The unemployment rate in Nevada is four times that of North Dakota. We have wide variances in standards of living, schools, infrastructure, debt, employment, social structure, you name it.”
    Exactly, and those differences will become even bigger if the federal government is shrunk instead of made stronger. A stronger government can balance things out, to some extent.

  14. Who’s going to give legal validity to marriage if not the government?

    Why does marriage need legal validity? What is marriage but a commitment between two people? If its necessary for legalities, a civil union is fine. Just eliminate government sanctioned marriage so civil unions don’t have to compete with them.

    Washington enabled them to do what they wanted by eliminating all regulations

    I have no idea what you’re talking about. Did you not read Dodd-Franks? We have enormous amounts of legislation in place. Where they have removed regulations, such as Glass-Steagal and eliminating mark-to-market accounting, they created the environment for the housing bubble and the derivatives market. A FedGov created disaster in which Wall Street is making enormous money.

    It IS a right in those countries, a government-given right

    Government cannot grant a right. Any right. A right is only legitimate if it cannot be taken away, which the government can clearly do anytime it wishes.

    Healthcare with an individual mandate and no pre-existing conditions denial is a failure. If I’m healthy, why on earth would I carry health insurance under this system? I’ll just pay the penalty which is much cheaper. If I get sick and need a doctor, I can then purchase insurance because I cannot be denied due to the pre-existing conditions mandate. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Government cannot force me to purchase a product for the mere fact that I exist. However, Obama will likely get it through the Supreme Court anyway, so we’ll see millions of people dropping coverage and paying the penalty which is cheaper. You call that fair?

    The problem is not the constitution, it’s the politicians. Changing it so dramatically won’t change a thing

    Exactly. Politicians don’t change with the corrupt system we have. That’s why I advocate funding the FedGov through the States entirely as this will strip them of the bulk of their power.

    A stronger government can balance things out, to some extent.

    How much stronger do you want? As it is, the Tenth Amendment is a joke. The FedGov does as it wishes and has so for over two centuries.

    Everything you advocate tells me you would benefit much more so in a communist country. Your desire for a dependency nation, perceived ‘fairness’, an all-powerful central government. A communist country should provide all you desire.

  15. “Why does marriage need legal validity? What is marriage but a commitment between two people? If its necessary for legalities, a civil union is fine. Just eliminate government sanctioned marriage so civil unions don’t have to compete with them.”

    Sure, but why call them civil unions? Just call it marriage.

    “I have no idea what you’re talking about. Did you not read Dodd-Franks? We have enormous amounts of legislation in place. Where they have removed regulations, such as Glass-Steagal and eliminating mark-to-market accounting, they created the environment for the housing bubble and the derivatives market. A FedGov created disaster in which Wall Street is making enormous money.”

    This is what I mean. LACK of government regulations causes trouble, not regulation.

    “Government cannot grant a right. Any right. A right is only legitimate if it cannot be taken away, which the government can clearly do anytime it wishes.”

    Any right can be taken away. Get real.

    “Healthcare with an individual mandate and no pre-existing conditions denial is a failure. If I’m healthy, why on earth would I carry health insurance under this system? I’ll just pay the penalty which is much cheaper. If I get sick and need a doctor, I can then purchase insurance because I cannot be denied due to the pre-existing conditions mandate. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. Government cannot force me to purchase a product for the mere fact that I exist. However, Obama will likely get it through the Supreme Court anyway, so we’ll see millions of people dropping coverage and paying the penalty which is cheaper. You call that fair?”

    I am against Obamacare, I want true, government-run, universal healthcare, which is cheaper and more efficient.

    “Everything you advocate tells me you would benefit much more so in a communist country. Your desire for a dependency nation, perceived ‘fairness’, an all-powerful central government. A communist country should provide all you desire.”

    Not really, a socialdemocratic country would be just fine.

  16. Patrick Henry was right when he complained the the constitution started “We the people” instead of “We the states if these United States America”. I t would have solved so many problems. Especially with your idea of the central government being funded by the states.

Comments are now closed.