Political Crossfire Forums

[gavnook]

I'm with King of Ruritania. That the AoC were superceded by the Constitution is not evidence that they "failed" or weren't good enough. I would appreciate if someone could elaborate a bit on this failure. What good things failed to happen because the confederation wasn't strong enough? I'm all ears.

[leftneckredwing]

gavnook wrote: I'm with King of Ruritania. That the AoC were superceded by the Constitution is not evidence that they "failed" or weren't good enough. I would appreciate if someone could elaborate a bit on this failure. What good things failed to happen because the confederation wasn't strong enough? I'm all ears.

Every state was printing it's own money and this caused hyper inflation.

The USC specified the power of the Federal government as the sole source of coin.

[Jehan]

EugenicHegemony wrote: The Articles were a decentralized system that couldn't compulsively collect taxes or enforce (centralized) collective authoritarian law at the (centralized) federal level. Sounds like a great idea to me. If the early Pennsylvanian colony didn't fail then that's proof that decentralization is possible, successful and attainable. If they wanted to amend the Articles then all states had to be in agreeance. This effectively takes all power away from the government and leaves where it should be. We're a bankrupt nation and the USC has done nothing to stop it. Time, progress and technology would have shown the Articles as a superior document. The Bill of Rights would have came regardless as it was modeled after the Roman system. You either pay now or you pay later, and we sure as hell are paying now. Nothing substantial comes without work, and sacrifice.

It is quite clear you do not know why the Articles failed. All you see is "Feds can't tax" and all of a sudden it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. In reality, these weaknesses nearly destroyed America. After the American Revolution, the new Republic had a massive amount of debt owed to foreign nations, particularly Spain and France. Because there was no way for the feds to collect revenue, there was no way to pay back the debt. Without any precious metal, the currency became worthless (A common saying for something that was worthless was "Not worth a Continental." With worthless money and deep debt, America's credit rating plummeted. Bankers would not invest in the economy, and as such there was no real money. Businesses who needed investment could not find it and failed. The point where America realised its government was not going to work was Shays' Rebellion, when a group of Massachusetts farmers rallied behind Daniel Shays, a captain from the Revolutionary era. Shays and his supporters attempted to seize Springfield Arsenal, but failed. The rebellion was put down by the local militia. However, people realised that the federal government, which had no army, would not be able to fight further rebellions. As such, a call for change was sounded, and it was answered in Philadelphia in 1787.

[mirage]

cap'n queasy wrote: mirage wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: mirage wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: It's a lesser document in that it assumes rights are granted by the government rather than inherent.

That actually does make some sense - although it seems the USC hasn't always been a guarantee that our inalienable rights will be upheld, which challenges the idea that simply saying rights are inherent may not actually have any direct value in our lives. I feel the value of any "right" can only be preserved through observation of such a right regardless of it's source.

And that is the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The right to defend your other rights from aggression.

Yes, but continuing with my point, the 2nd amendment is nothing more than words. Obviously, there is an incredible depth of legality that can obscure these rights with even more words. Some of these words, such as the war on terror or national security, act like trump cards. It would take the actual picking up of a gun and threatening or shooting a person who is obscuring your rights, most likely a police officer or US soldier, for the purpose of the 2nd amendment to be fulfilled. And if it comes to that, then what does it matter that the words ever existed in the first place?

The words matter because they inspired the actions that forged this Nation and it's ideals.

And they will inspire people to protect it in it's darkest hours. This is why the pen is said to be mightier than the sword.
:-D

So, then why did the pen write the 2nd amendement which is all about the sword? It seems that even the pen has to rely on the sword for the final act. I believe the reason is that the pen, which CAN be mighter than the sword, nevertheless relies on a literate population for it's might, where the sword relies on undeniable physics.

This is where I see the departure between idealism and practicality. It's nice to say these things about the pen being mightier than the sword and that rights are inherent, but in reality these nice things are often compromised. As I have been explaining, the words that suggest we have rights often get pushed aside or obscured by other words that suggest necessity. So really, how much mightier is a pen than a pen?

Let's face it, the USC was written in much simpler times, when most people couldn't read and the sword was in most cases mightier than the pen. Today, there is enough literacy and suggestions of necessity to counter the pen of the USC with the pen of the executive order, or national security, or the war on terrorism, or the judicial bench. The American people could be defeated by the pen long before they ever pick up the sword.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The American people could be defeated by the pen long before they ever pick up the sword.

Note that this would be accomplished by destroying the Constitution, not upholding it.

That's the reality.

[mirage]

Gus wrote: FCTE wrote: The AoC failed horribly.
Well you're like a history major or whatever, but from the (albeit little) research I have done on the AoC, here's what I posted about it in the Lib HQ:

Gus wrote: The whole "failure" of the Articles of Confederation was a lie by bond-holders to institute a tax policy so they could make some dough. Hamilton was a major pusher behind the Constitution because he thought that "a national debt . . . will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our union." The whole "failure" of the government because they couldn't levy a tax was an exaggeration of the post-war depression caused by the war (not the economic policies) and the demands of the federal government backed by large industries hurt by the depression. They couldn't "fund" the federal government because they wanted funds to control the money supply, levy tariffs, etc. Luckily the states refused to give the federal government money to do that stuff (but gave them the money they needed to pay the debt), but the lobbyists started bitching because of the depression. As always, hard times instituted statist policy instead of letting the free market work.

The country pulled out of the depression the year of the establishment of the Constitution, but that was NOT due to the Constitution, it was the inevitable stabilization of the economy.

Maybe this will stimulate some interesting discussion ;).

PS, moved to Historical Events.

Yes, I do think it's quite clear that the AoC only failed to meet the objectives of Federalism. Anyone who reads Hamilton's own letters in the Federalist Papers should recognize this.

[mirage]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The American people could be defeated by the pen long before they ever pick up the sword.

Note that this would be accomplished by destroying the Constitution, not upholding it.

That's the reality.

The reality is that any document can be misinterpreted and misrepresented it's entirely possible that the American people can be defeated by upholding the USC or saved by destroying the USC. I'm not advocating the odds, I'm only saying it's possible.

This depends entirely on what people think defeat means. Some people think we are already defeated and when you compare the freedoms that we enjoy today to the freedoms that we had prior to the USC, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest we are really that much better off now. I agree that we are much better off than all the imaginary alternatives we like to fantasize about.

I think the USC is overrated. We don't give enough credit to the things that truely make us free, such as a wealthy economy, education and an abundance of resources.

[leftneckredwing]

mirage wrote: Gus wrote: FCTE wrote: The AoC failed horribly.
Well you're like a history major or whatever, but from the (albeit little) research I have done on the AoC, here's what I posted about it in the Lib HQ:

Gus wrote: The whole "failure" of the Articles of Confederation was a lie by bond-holders to institute a tax policy so they could make some dough. Hamilton was a major pusher behind the Constitution because he thought that "a national debt . . . will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our union." The whole "failure" of the government because they couldn't levy a tax was an exaggeration of the post-war depression caused by the war (not the economic policies) and the demands of the federal government backed by large industries hurt by the depression. They couldn't "fund" the federal government because they wanted funds to control the money supply, levy tariffs, etc. Luckily the states refused to give the federal government money to do that stuff (but gave them the money they needed to pay the debt), but the lobbyists started bitching because of the depression. As always, hard times instituted statist policy instead of letting the free market work.

The country pulled out of the depression the year of the establishment of the Constitution, but that was NOT due to the Constitution, it was the inevitable stabilization of the economy.

Maybe this will stimulate some interesting discussion ;).

PS, moved to Historical Events.

Yes, I do think it's quite clear that the AoC only failed to meet the objectives of Federalism. Anyone who reads Hamilton's own letters in the Federalist Papers should recognize this.

Hamilton contributed but was also a bit of a fake. He called his faction the Federalists when it should have been called the Nationalists. He lobbied for a very strong central government that resembled the Government of England. Apparently he went so far as to ask George Washington to be King. He called the true Federalists the anti Federalists. One of the earliest uses of spin in our new country.

Patrick Henry and his supporters were the True Federalists and did not support an overwhelmingly powerful central government. He campaigned for a Federal power that was only respnsible for the authority to perform the legitimate functions that could only be handled Federally.

Had Hamilton won his way, we would be even more under the thumb of the feds than we are now. Frightening.

[cap'n queasy]

mirage wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The American people could be defeated by the pen long before they ever pick up the sword.

Note that this would be accomplished by destroying the Constitution, not upholding it.

That's the reality.

The reality is that any document can be misinterpreted and misrepresented it's entirely possible that the American people can be defeated by upholding the USC or saved by destroying the USC. I'm not advocating the odds, I'm only saying it's possible.

This depends entirely on what people think defeat means. Some people think we are already defeated and when you compare the freedoms that we enjoy today to the freedoms that we had prior to the USC, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest we are really that much better off now. I agree that we are much better off than all the imaginary alternatives we like to fantasize about.

I think the USC is overrated. We don't give enough credit to the things that truely make us free, such as a wealthy economy, education and an abundance of resources.

Those things create financial freedom for a small minority.

The Constitution is for every one. And it's real freedom, not just money.

[gavnook]

leftneckredwing wrote: Had Hamilton won his way, we would be even more under the thumb of the feds than we are now. Frightening.

I hardly think so. He wanted to centralize power, but he could hardly imagine the grotesque monstrosity we have today. I doubt he would be a fan of the nanny state. And what difference would it make if we had a kind instead of a president? How many kings have ever wielded the kind of power our modern presidents have?

[leftneckredwing]

gavnook wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: Had Hamilton won his way, we would be even more under the thumb of the feds than we are now. Frightening.

I hardly think so. He wanted to centralize power, but he could hardly imagine the grotesque monstrosity we have today. I doubt he would be a fan of the nanny state. And what difference would it make if we had a kind instead of a president? How many kings have ever wielded the kind of power our modern presidents have?

You hardly think so, but I know so.

That question about kings demonstrates that you don't really have a good handle on the climate at the time. They saw something wrong with it because there was something wrong with it. Remember? 7 year war for Independence from a nasty little monarchy. I don't see how trading one tyrant for another justifies a right ot rule by birth.

[mirage]

cap'n queasy wrote: mirage wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: The American people could be defeated by the pen long before they ever pick up the sword.

Note that this would be accomplished by destroying the Constitution, not upholding it.

That's the reality.

The reality is that any document can be misinterpreted and misrepresented it's entirely possible that the American people can be defeated by upholding the USC or saved by destroying the USC. I'm not advocating the odds, I'm only saying it's possible.

This depends entirely on what people think defeat means. Some people think we are already defeated and when you compare the freedoms that we enjoy today to the freedoms that we had prior to the USC, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to suggest we are really that much better off now. I agree that we are much better off than all the imaginary alternatives we like to fantasize about.

I think the USC is overrated. We don't give enough credit to the things that truely make us free, such as a wealthy economy, education and an abundance of resources.

Those things create financial freedom for a small minority.

The Constitution is for every one. And it's real freedom, not just money.

I don't entirely disagree with you. Certainly, words of freedom locked in such a revered document does contribute toward the people recognizing the importance of freedom. But I think your looking at this through a very narrow focus centered on the rhetoric we all grow up with.

I assume that when you say "those things create financial freedom for a small minority" you are referring to the typical liberal response to inequality within the national system, which is a valid point. But as you've noted, the USC is for everyone (actually it's for the US citizens). So you really have to view the inequality in global terms, transcending the borders of the USC's jurisdiction.

Most people in the US including myself (and I'm not a part of that small minority you mention) are extremely rich compared to people in less developed nations. If you look at the social freedom that people enjoy across the globe, most people in wealthy nations are relatively rich compared to most people in underveloped nations. By an extreme partity. They are also more free.

The people in Germany and France and Britian are essentially free people. They apparently don't need the USC to enjoy freedom. They are also rich compared to those in underveloped nations. It maybe just a coincidence and I'm not going to jam this down your throat, but if you start looking at this angle, I think you will see that the pattern is way too regular to be a coincidence.

[battleax86]

The Constitution beats the AoC because its worked for the last 200+ years. The AoC didn't last a decade without causing massive problems.

[mirage]

battleax86 wrote: The Constitution beats the AoC because its worked for the last 200+ years. The AoC didn't last a decade without causing massive problems.
Some people just keep repeating the same nonsense. AoC failed, AoC failed... Yet, everytime I ask how or why it failed, they don't seem to have a response. Can YOU explain how it failed or what the massive problems were?

[battleax86]

Here it is, in a nutshell:

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/USRA_Articles_of_Confed.htm

Unless you don't consider an economic depression to be a massive problem...

[mirage]

battleax86 wrote: Here it is, in a nutshell:

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/USRA_Articles_of_Confed.htm

Unless you don't consider an economic depression to be a massive problem...

...and how many economic depressions have we had since the USC? Does the Great Depression mean that the USC failed?

Here's what your article listed as "problems"...

Quote: The inability to pay off the debt from the war collectively thus appearing less like a nation in they eyes of the world. It also hurt our ability to borrow money.

This problem could have resolved itself without having to develop a central bank. The states would have simply dealt with the issue on their individual terms. If they wanted to borrow money, they would have to establish credit by paying back their debts and encouraging confidence in foriegn investors, and the states were free to figure out how to do that on their own. Foreign investors would simply be investing in Virgina or New York, instead of the USA. I don't see a problem there at all.

It may have taken longer than 10 years to pay off the war debt, but then again, it took us longer than 10 years to pay off Vietnam. Hamilton pushed for a collective solution because he wanted a central power. There was even the suggestion to make George Washington a King. The central bank was the only solution, it was just the one they went with.

Quote: Discord among states who began taxing each other. This led to an overall slump in the national economy and, eventually, a depression.
Some things just take time. Look at the EU, there was all kinds of discord among the member countries - for years. There are still some arguments between them, but today the EU is overtaking the US as the strongest economic power in the world.

Quote:
The government was powerless to put down Shay's Rebellion, a farmers revolt.
I'm not so sure that was a problem. Maybe the farmers had reason to revolt. The 13 colonies did. Do we call the American Revolution a failure because the revolt wasn't squashed?

Sorry bro - you're reading material brings up some interesting points, but I wouldn't call any of them conclussive. But I appreciate you at least presenting the argument.

[EugenicHegemony]

mirage wrote: battleax86 wrote: Here it is, in a nutshell:

http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/USRA_Articles_of_Confed.htm

Unless you don't consider an economic depression to be a massive problem...

...and how many economic depressions have we had since the USC? Does the Great Depression mean that the USC failed?

Here's what your article listed as "problems"...

Quote: The inability to pay off the debt from the war collectively thus appearing less like a nation in they eyes of the world. It also hurt our ability to borrow money.

This problem could have resolved itself without having to develop a central bank. The states would have simply dealt with the issue on their individual terms. If they wanted to borrow money, they would have to establish credit by paying back their debts and encouraging confidence in foriegn investors, and the states were free to figure out how to do that on their own. Foreign investors would simply be investing in Virgina or New York, instead of the USA. I don't see a problem there at all.

It may have taken longer than 10 years to pay off the war debt, but then again, it took us longer than 10 years to pay off Vietnam. Hamilton pushed for a collective solution because he wanted a central power. There was even the suggestion to make George Washington a King. The central bank was the only solution, it was just the one they went with.

Quote: Discord among states who began taxing each other. This led to an overall slump in the national economy and, eventually, a depression.
Some things just take time. Look at the EU, there was all kinds of discord among the member countries - for years. There are still some arguments between them, but today the EU is overtaking the US as the strongest economic power in the world.

Quote:
The government was powerless to put down Shay's Rebellion, a farmers revolt.
I'm not so sure that was a problem. Maybe the farmers had reason to revolt. The 13 colonies did. Do we call the American Revolution a failure because the revolt wasn't squashed?

Sorry bro - you're reading material brings up some interesting points, but I wouldn't call any of them conclussive. But I appreciate you at least presenting the argument.

Exactly, and revisionist history taught in our American traitorous national communist public schools is crap.

Quote: The government was powerless to put down Shay's Rebellion, a farmers revolt.

Good!

Shays Rebellion was about oppression, and all these farmers wanted to do was keep their farms. The Federalist Nationalists made up lies, and used it as an excuse to take absolute control. Those despots then set up a centralized limitlessly powerful Federal system, and the old British empire now dwarfs the American Eugenic Hegemonic Empire that invades, and does as it pleases today.

[mirage]

EugenicHegemony wrote:
battleax86 wrote: The government was powerless to put down Shay's Rebellion, a farmers revolt.

Good!

Shays Rebellion was about oppression, and all these farmers wanted to do was keep their farms. The Federalist Nationalists made up lies, and used it as an excuse to take absolute control. Those despots then set up a centralized limitlessly powerful Federal system, and the old British empire now dwarfs the American Eugenic Hegemonic Empire that invades, and does as it pleases today.

Yeah - I think it's clear at this point that the USC is just better at enforcing a bigger and more oppressive government. Even so, I'd keep the Bill of Rights.

[EugenicHegemony]

mirage wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote:
battleax86 wrote: The government was powerless to put down Shay's Rebellion, a farmers revolt.

Good!

Shays Rebellion was about oppression, and all these farmers wanted to do was keep their farms. The Federalist Nationalists made up lies, and used it as an excuse to take absolute control. Those despots then set up a centralized limitlessly powerful Federal system, and the old British empire now dwarfs the American Eugenic Hegemonic Empire that invades, and does as it pleases today.

Yeah - I think it's clear at this point that the USC is just better at enforcing a bigger and more oppressive government. Even so, I'd keep the Bill of Rights.

It's sad that so many here either a) won't admit or b) so brainwashed that they can't even see the truth when the boots already at their necks. Next time, if 'battleax' is going to appeal to authority, I trust he'll appeal to truth, and not revisionist government propagandic lies. The Bill of Rights is the only part I would keep, and everything else is onerous traitorous garbage. I love the way these Federalist Nationalists used Martial Law to take absolute control. Hell, the British Empire hadn't even done that for over 500 years when our (soon to be) new rulers decided to enforce Martial Law as they weren't getting their aristocratic way. I have completely changed my mind on the USC as it put us in the same chains the American Revolutionaries fought and died to break off. Seeing the new Iraqi Constitution as just an extension of ours with both Hatriot Acts already built in it has really opened my eyes to the reason for the USC. Have you seen the thread I made on that national socialist piece of U.S.G. installed trash? The only difference is theirs is infused with a theocracy. You know they say the U.S, is a christain nation... :-|

Imagine the AOC with the Bill OF Rights. That's real liberty... Thing is with the AOC, we didn't even need it as each state was a sovereign entity, and each person had the power to protect themselves from (any governing) oppression. Shay's Rebellion is a good example of that. Not only that it was modeled (along with Martial Law :cry: ) after the Roman Republic so we would've gotten it at some point anyway. After all, who doesn't want as many freedoms as possible? Oh that's right, these jive turkeys today don't seem to care if the oppression is coming from their government as long as it not's coming from France :roll: the EU, or UN. :lol: They're so pathetic...

[Katsumoto]

The Articles are superior precisely because the FEDGOV is weaker under them. The weaker the better... I personally prefer non-existant myself.