View Full Version : Is our government model out of date?
Gents, just simple thinking out loud on my part.
I'm conservative, I'm libertarian, I believe in the constitution and I generally have an "orginal intent" style interpretation of it. What I am wondering though is if it may be out of date. I don't meen the freedoms it protects or the pricniples behind it, but just the government structure that we have or rather, are supposed to have.
Specially I mean the local-state-federal dynamic, I'm not sure it's the best for the modern world anymore. Today I can be anywhere in the country in 6 hours. I can communicate instantly to anyone, anywhere in the world whenever I want. With those abilities, is it really the right answer that a mega issue like abortion can vary state to state?
I'm not saying I want the federal government to decide, thats the last thing I want, but maybe we need a system where the states can make decisions that become national law. Yes, I realize this is called a constitutional amendment but that's a pretty serious event and I'm not totally sure it can even happen anymore. I would almost think that we could replace the federal senate and house with the state congresses. Something like abortion gets voted on by each state, majority verdict becomes the national law.
Obviously this isn't a perfect system, it might even suck, I'm just spitballing.
But I think the system we have has trouble keeping up with the times, and it has left a lot of room for local and state governments to infringe on rights more so than the feds. Why can I carry a weapon in washington but not california, or get an abortion in one state but not the next state over. Gay marriage, income vs sales tax, nfa items, etc etc. In 1776 trying to move from New Jersey to Arizona would probably get you killed but today I could pack up, relocate, and establish residency in another state by the end of the day. I'm not sure that allowing the laws to vary so much is practical anymore.
In addition to that, there are so many local and state laws that are ridiculously out of date. I'm sure I can find a city where doggy style is illegal or driving barefoot is. Yea that may have worked when you were born, lived, and died in the same city but does it work today?
I wonder if it would work better if our constition, while still protecting the same rights it always has, were modified to bring the states in line with eachother and made us more one nation and less 50 states, and I think that could be done by empowering the states to make national decisions rather than a ridiculously out of control federal government like we have.
Am I insane?
Belmont31R
10-03-11, 14:03
The states gave away their right to have a part in Federal law making with the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
Another thought I had is if this model is or will contribute to the divide in this nation. While it used to be your only option was to fight for change in the government have, it's way easier today to just move to where the government you want already is. I already know that I will not live in a state that has shitty gun laws once I retire from the military and just like that is an important issue to me, so is abortion, gay marriage, taxes, etc... to others. If all the gay people flock to the gay marriage states, all the gun owners flock to the pro-gun states, liberals and conservatives, on and on, does every state end up becoming a no-contest state? Could it not ultimately end up that every single state votes the same way every single time? What if that happens and the majority of states are left leaning and win every single election and vote? How long before it destroys everything the constitution stood for?
VooDoo6Actual
10-03-11, 15:13
It's not the MODEL that is outdated it's the outright collusion, corruption, the twisted secrecy and agenda of those aligned & involved that is the problem. Do the homework & research. We are being usurped from within by treasonous acts unconstitutional acts & conduct from secretive socities members plain & simple. If you don't know or do not understand take the time to do the research etc. It's all out there and OSINT.
It's elected people not following the Constitution and changing it at their whim as an abuse of power no doubt....BY gaming and stacking the deck etc..
The EO Presidential powers having been overstepped is HOW we got here coupled w/ CONGRESS selling out the American people. etc.
OP-
Woodrow Wilson made the same claim about the Constitution being outta date...then he acted upon it.
The reason our country has it's problems is because power has been taken AWAY from the states. Everything is starting to be ruled from one tiny office, 3,000 miles away, out of touch with reality and with those who it subjects to its rules. Giving that same bloated, inefficient, fear-mongering administration more power is not the answer.
Going back to the Constitution, the only role the Federal government had was to create and maintain a military for national defense and to protect and enforce the liberties on the individual should the States try to take them away. Instead, we have a Federal government telling us what we can and can't do and most of the States are having to fight for their rights, while others are stealing their citizens' rights with the approval of the Federal government.
You cannot take our country in its current form and say that the government model does work. Our government model works when it falls in line with the original, unadulterated Constitution. When you start adding laws that defy liberty, adding alphabet agencies that serve as an unchecked fourth branch of the legal system, and have a Federal government telling the people that their concern is gay marriage while we're in the middle of an economic recession, of course you're going to have a dysfunctional government.
It's not the fault of the government model, it's the fault of the traitors who have refused to follow the Constitution and it's our fault for not getting them out of power.
For every system, there are those whose sole purpose is to game it. The gamers of the system have exponentially increased in efficiency and numbers in the past few decades. The system is simply not designed to handle it. Our once simple, effective and in some ways elegant system of government is now a mockery.
News flash, you're not going to get rid of the gamers. The only way to shrug them off is to completely change the game. They'll eventually come back though. All you ever buy is time. How much depends on how determined you are.
Belmont31R
10-03-11, 16:07
I wouldn't say it was taken away. The states have passed amendments giving the Feds rights they used to have such as the Senate being the states voice in Congress. The House was supposed to be for the people not both the House and Senate.
It amazes me FDR was elected FOUR times, and had to be the most tyrannical president in our history. Most of the BS we deal with today was started under his rule.
And what the Founders gave us was not perfect, and they knew that but they put the ball in our hands to be the check and balance against all of government. We deserve the government we get, and over time American's have failed to keep people out of office who are there to expand government and decrease liberty. Simple as that.
News flash, you're not going to get rid of the gamers. The only way to shrug them off is to....
Newsflash: That's what the Second Amendment was for.
Going back to the Constitution, the only role the Federal government had was to create and maintain a military for national defense and to protect and enforce the liberties on the individual should the States try to take them away. Instead, we have a Federal government telling us what we can and can't do
You cannot take our country in its current form and say that the government model does work. Our government model works when it falls in line with the original, unadulterated Constitution.
Exactly. An old roomate of mine was a cop and told me that most Highway patrol guys only stop you over 80MPH. So the the defacto speed limit becomes 80 not 65 as posted.
This is what has happened to the Government. The only difference being that people still know the laws really says 65.
Ever since Alexander Hamilton was appointed to Washington's cabinet, there has been a concerted effort by some in this country to twist the Constitution into something it is not; but the way they would like it to be. This has snowballed since then with major pushes after the Civil War and in the early 1900's.
Hell, law schools teach "Case Law" in Constitutional Law classes rather than the original intent and history of the Constitution.
If people would educate themselves about the original intent of the Constitution and understand the debates that formed it, they would realize not just how far we have deviated, but would appreciate how brilliant and MODERN it really is.
Our model of Government is the most perfect every created and truly exceptional in the history of mankind. Our politicians and citizens just need to read the "rules".
ditto the others mostly
its not the system its the people
analogy
its like saying do we need to rethink cars since to many drunk drivers are killing people ?
no we need to clean house of drunk drivers and truly make them pay and not give them a pass
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-03-11, 17:36
The sadddest and really most perplexing thing is that the the Republican Presidential candidates and leaders don't seem to be able to make the connection that the current federal system is broken and put tht into a lucid arguement or plan.
Yes, Washington is broken- the issue is not to fix it but rather change the venue of where public policy takes place by forcing power to the state level. At the same time, I agree with the TEA Party, but like most liberterian based systems it tries to replace something (very powerful) with nothing. That is never going to be a viable long term strategy. What the Republicans need to argue is that we get crap for all the taxes we pay and that we'll never get the value out a one-size-fits-all federal system. Let Obama defend the current, broken Fed based system while the Republicans can be the party of 'Change'.
Belmont31R
10-03-11, 17:45
Exactly. An old roomate of mine was a cop and told me that most Highway patrol guys only stop you over 80MPH. So the the defacto speed limit becomes 80 not 65 as posted.
This is what has happened to the Government. The only difference being that people still know the laws really says 65.
Ever since Alexander Hamilton was appointed to Washington's cabinet, there has been a concerted effort by some in this country to twist the Constitution into something it is not; but the way they would like it to be. This has snowballed since then with major pushes after the Civil War and in the early 1900's.
Hell, law schools teach "Case Law" in Constitutional Law classes rather than the original intent and history of the Constitution.
If people would educate themselves about the original intent of the Constitution and understand the debates that formed it, they would realize not just how far we have deviated, but would appreciate how brilliant and MODERN it really is.
Our model of Government is the most perfect every created and truly exceptional in the history of mankind. Our politicians and citizens just need to read the "rules".
My government class in HS spent about 15 minutes on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. I read most of them over time but need to go back and read them more thoroughly again.
And I do agree most do not have any clue why things were done the way they were, and just accept the current system as whats 'legal' so they start off with a false pretense. Like saying the EPA is unconstitutional...instead we debate what role the EPA should have instead of why we have it in the first place or if its even constitutional.
But I think the most telling thing is even that Obama even has a chance to get elected. If we really had a freedom loving independent populace it would not even be an issue in the first place. But we have a huge free shit class and a liberal party growing more intense everyday.
Suwannee Tim
10-03-11, 18:54
Before you decide if our government model is out of date you have to define out government model. First, there are five branches of the Federal Government. The Executive, the Judicial, the Legislative the Media and the Bureaucratic. The Judicial branch is supreme over the other branches because they said so. The Legislative branch passes suggestions which the Bureaucratic branch uses (or not) to guide their lawmaking. The Judicial branch may also engage in lawmaking through decisions as can the Executive through Executive Orders. The Executive consists of the President, Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries who are confirmed by the Senate. The Cabinet Secretaries are ceremonial positions, the real power is vested in the various Czars who are not confirmed by anyone. The basic law is called the Constitution which no one pays attention to except where it can be misapplied to increase the power of the Judicial or Bureaucratic branches. The Media is the propaganda organ of the Federal Government though it's employees don't draw paychecks from the Treasury.
I didn't start this thread to talk about how ****ed up the government is, nor do I need to be told to go read the constitution.
I'm posing the question that if things ran the way there were supposed to is it still the best model, specifically in the day and age where I can get anywhere in this country in a matter of hours and talk to anyone instantly, is allowing state and local laws to vary so widely still practical? Gay marriage, abortion, tax codes, gun control, etc... does is it still work to say "the states decide for themselves" anymore?
I'm not talking about Wilson or FDR, or unconstitutional alphabet agencies. If it still ran as intended, is it still the best model for the modern world?
I didn't start this thread to talk about how ****ed up the government is, nor do I need to be told to go read the constitution.
I'm posing the question that if things ran the way there were supposed to is it still the best model, specifically in the day and age where I can get anywhere in this country in a matter of hours and talk to anyone instantly, is allowing state and local laws to vary so widely still practical? Gay marriage, abortion, tax codes, gun control, etc... does is it still work to say "the states decide for themselves" anymore?
I'm not talking about Wilson or FDR, or unconstitutional alphabet agencies. If it still ran as intended, is it still the best model for the modern world?
Yes. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :(
variablebinary
10-04-11, 00:29
Strangely enough, this is exactly the same thing a socialist Marxist would ask.
I didn't start this thread to talk about how ****ed up the government is, nor do I need to be told to go read the constitution.
I'm posing the question that if things ran the way there were supposed to is it still the best model, specifically in the day and age where I can get anywhere in this country in a matter of hours and talk to anyone instantly, is allowing state and local laws to vary so widely still practical? Gay marriage, abortion, tax codes, gun control, etc... does is it still work to say "the states decide for themselves" anymore?
I'm not talking about Wilson or FDR, or unconstitutional alphabet agencies. If it still ran as intended, is it still the best model for the modern world?
Your sounding like Woodrow Wilson. This country went from a 3rd world nation to the most powerful nation on Earth in about 150 years. This is unprecedented in human history.
What other model of government has that track record? What would be better?
If you read history you can see that very little is new in human society. The issues today have been rehashed in other forms over and over again.
The concept behind state sovereignty is that it keeps power from concentrating with the few; an idea consistent with most of the Constitution. What in our modern world suggests we should consolidate the government? That would not be progressive but regressive.
I'm conservative, I'm libertarian, I believe in the constitution and I generally have an "orginal intent" style interpretation of it.
When someone puts such a caveat at the beginning of a post it safe to assume that what is about to follow is going to be consistent with none of those claims.
What followed in your post is eerily similar to the kind of "change" posed by Marxist statists.
The only thing wrong with our system is that it has been perverted and twisted over time by control freaks. Attempting to adopt that perversion to advance a political agenda that might be palatable to "us" would be dangerous and a grotesque and egregious violation of the very liberties we value.
Am I insane?
No. Horribly misguided? Yes.
I posed a question and was thinking out loud, I am not advocating the destruction of america or even suggest this was a great idea. A lot of these responses have been beyond offensive but hey, it's the internet.
Rather than branding me a heretic for having some thoughts of my own (heaven forbid), why doesn't some one try to defend the system we have since it's so perfect. How does it still work, what are its advantages, why would brining state laws more in line with each other be a bad thing, etc... You know, actually have a discussion rather than a dog pile. I'm open to be convinced either way.
It's a pretty hyperbolic leap to go from maybe things like abortion and gun control laws shouldn't vary state to state given that I can be anywhere in a matter of hours, to hail Marx, and some of the hypocrisy behind those generalizations vs posts in other threads is nothing short of amazing.
I'll pose some more questions, and I am interested in hearing how you see them playing out.
Let's say we got rid of the department of education. While it has done a great job at nothing, what would then happen and how is education handled? All schools become private or state run and compete in an education market of sorts? That sounds good to me, but let me throw this out there, what if Arkansas decides it's education system will not teach science that conflicts with the bible, no matter how indisputably proven it may be, greatly hindering the education residents are able to receive? What if New Jersey teaches that the government was behind 9/11 and similar types of slants on things like Vietnam. What if Massachusetts teaches liberal ideology only and starts at elementary school? Or if every school is different what if every school in your area teaches the same thing that you as the parent disagree with but you can not afford or are unable to move or homeschool? Is this addressed in some way, or is it accepted as the consequence of freedom? Do you believe that the "market" would prevent these sorts of things?
If we got rid of the TSA, what happens? Does it become the airport or the airlines responsibility to ensure security, where the market supports the most secure and safest airlines? Does airport security just go away again?
Disband the EPA, is the market really going to demand that companies are environmentally responsible? I agree that is has the power to, but I don't know that it will. When I think of the average citizen they don't give a shit. They only care about price, they don't care if its made in China, if the company is destroying the planet, or if it supports goddamn terrorism.
Similar questions arise with every agency we eliminate. I believe in the power of the free market when it is run by educated, informed, and involved consumers it could replace government completely. My issue is I don't have that same faith in the people, do you? If you don't, whats the right answer to prevent your average American from selling us completely?
I also don't fully understand the concept supported by Ron Paul of allowing private currencies to compete, how would that even work?
What happened for the almost 200 years we DIDN'T have the EPA, Dept of Edu? I think there is a direct and hardly coincidental relationship between the rise of the US without massive government overreach and the massive problems we have now with an overweight Fed government.
The states were to be individual laboratories where great ideas would be emulated by other states and bad ones only effect the individual state.
Some of the most strict gun laws are in states with rampant crime and violence. The experiment has played out and most have seen it is an epic failure. State by State guns are becoming increasingly deregulated. So the dopey laws in NJ, Ill, CA, etc only effect those people. If people would elect pro gun politicians the laws will change. That is how the system is supposed to work.
Discussing whether our system of government is to blame is equivalent to saying "maybe I should by a Honda because the Ford Taurus I have (which you have gone 40K w/o and oil change or any fluid change and run on 4 under-inflated tires while towing a large camper) seems to be acting sluggish.
As for the original intent; I'm not sure everyone who throws this term around really understands exactly what it is. So here is James Madison explaining the role of the State and Fed Gov in Federalist 45. Tell me if you think we currently run the gov like this?
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Belmont31R
10-04-11, 08:51
I'll pose some more questions, and I am interested in hearing how you see them playing out.
Let's say we got rid of the department of education. While it has done a great job at nothing, what would then happen and how is education handled? All schools become private or state run and compete in an education market of sorts? That sounds good to me, but let me throw this out there, what if Arkansas decides it's education system will not teach science that conflicts with the bible, no matter how indisputably proven it may be, greatly hindering the education residents are able to receive? What if New Jersey teaches that the government was behind 9/11 and similar types of slants on things like Vietnam. What if Massachusetts teaches liberal ideology only and starts at elementary school? Or if every school is different what if every school in your area teaches the same thing that you as the parent disagree with but you can not afford or are unable to move or homeschool? Is this addressed in some way, or is it accepted as the consequence of freedom? Do you believe that the "market" would prevent these sorts of things?
If we got rid of the TSA, what happens? Does it become the airport or the airlines responsibility to ensure security, where the market supports the most secure and safest airlines? Does airport security just go away again?
Disband the EPA, is the market really going to demand that companies are environmentally responsible? I agree that is has the power to, but I don't know that it will. When I think of the average citizen they don't give a shit. They only care about price, they don't care if its made in China, if the company is destroying the planet, or if it supports goddamn terrorism.
Similar questions arise with every agency we eliminate. I believe in the power of the free market when it is run by educated, informed, and involved consumers it could replace government completely. My issue is I don't have that same faith in the people, do you? If you don't, whats the right answer to prevent your average American from selling us completely?
I also don't fully understand the concept supported by Ron Paul of allowing private currencies to compete, how would that even work?
The problem is when you give a central government a tool they don't always use it the way intended. The EPA was put in place to stop things like rivers from being so polluted they used to catch fire, and we now have much cleaner waterways than we used to.
The problem is now we have someone in office who doesn't like a certain segment of commerce so he uses those tools to harass and rule make them out of existence.
So if you don't think the free market is capable of policing itself what makes you think the same people who are the free market would elect someone who doesn't abuse the tools they were given?
I think most states would run decent education systems, and people can make decisions based on whats important to them. I wouldn't really care if a state wanted to teach communism or someone bible thumper state wanted only religious based education. If I lived in that state, and it was important enough to me Id move, homeschool, or go private school. You're never going to find a state or country that conforms 100% to your own personal beliefs.
Strangely enough, this is exactly the same thing a socialist Marxist would ask.
Ironically, my first post basically said this exact thing before I deleted it. I removed it because the truth is that anyone stupid enough to think that they can come up with a better plan to lead our country with nothing more than a keyboard and a few spare hours usually isn't intelligent enough to understand the hypocrisy of their ideology (no offense intended to anyone).
What happened for the almost 200 years we DIDN'T have the EPA, Dept of Edu? I think there is a direct and hardly coincidental relationship between the rise of the US without massive government overreach and the massive problems we have now with an overweight Fed government.
Again, I'm not saying a big federal government is the answer at all, but I go back to the first post, durring those 200 years we didn't have internet, smart phones, airlines, hadron coliders, etc... The intent of my question is if these advances need to affect some changes in our government model to account for how much "smaller" we are now.
The states were to be individual laboratories where great ideas would be emulated by other states and bad ones only effect the individual state.
Some of the most strict gun laws are in states with rampant crime and violence. The experiment has played out and most have seen it is an epic failure. State by State guns are becoming increasingly deregulated. So the dopey laws in NJ, Ill, CA, etc only effect those people. If people would elect pro gun politicians the laws will change. That is how the system is supposed to work.
I get that, but will it instead lead to a greater divide now that we have the technology that we do? Since it would be way easier to just move to a state that has laws I like rather than trying to change the one I have, does that eventually get us to a point where people don't change their government to represent them, they just move to the closest match?
Discussing whether our system of government is to blame is equivalent to saying "maybe I should by a Honda because the Ford Taurus I have (which you have gone 40K w/o and oil change or any fluid change and run on 4 under-inflated tires while towing a large camper) seems to be acting sluggish.
I'm not blaming our government model for the mess we are in, at all. We are all in complete agreement about how ridiculous the federal government is and I am not advocating increasing its power in any way. I am ASKING THE QUESTION, do the states need to be empowered to make national changes? Is it still the right answer in todays age for major laws to vary? If so, why?
As for the original intent; I'm not sure everyone who throws this term around really understands exactly what it is. So here is James Madison explaining the role of the State and Fed Gov in Federalist 45. Tell me if you think we currently run the gov like this?
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Not even close.
The problem is when you give a central government a tool they don't always use it the way intended. The EPA was put in place to stop things like rivers from being so polluted they used to catch fire, and we now have much cleaner waterways than we used to.
The problem is now we have someone in office who doesn't like a certain segment of commerce so he uses those tools to harass and rule make them out of existence.
So if you don't think the free market is capable of policing itself what makes you think the same people who are the free market would elect someone who doesn't abuse the tools they were given?
As we can see, they don't elect officials who won't abuse the tools and power they have, which is why I think the al-Awlaki precedent is such a big deal. So what, in your opinion, is the right answer? Is it already there, in the form of amendments for the major issues?
I think most states would run decent education systems, and people can make decisions based on whats important to them. I wouldn't really care if a state wanted to teach communism or someone bible thumper state wanted only religious based education. If I lived in that state, and it was important enough to me Id move, homeschool, or go private school. You're never going to find a state or country that conforms 100% to your own personal belief.
So you chalk it up to the consequences of freedom? If you are not free to choose foolishly you are not free at all type thing? Does it ever reach a point for you where it does become an issue? Say for instance if we start falling behind in the sciences because 21 states won't teach evolution in schools, or 19 states are preaching communism, do we start looking for intervention?
Again, I'm asking questions and looking for discussion, I am not advocating shit, arguing, attacking, etc...
Ironically, my first post basically said this exact thing before I deleted it. I removed it because the truth is that anyone stupid enough to think that they can come up with a better plan to lead our country with nothing more than a keyboard and a few spare hours usually isn't intelligent enough to understand the hypocrisy of their ideology (no offense intended to anyone).
How am I not supposed to take that as directed at me? You can't say with all do respect and then say whatever you want, lol.
How am I not supposed to take that as directed at me? You can't say with all do respect and then say whatever you want, lol.
Because it wasn't directed at you, it was directed widely at anyone who suggests what you just did. Virtually every dictatorship, act of aggressive warfare, mass genocide, and mechanic of enslaving and controlling humanity begins with "Our government needs to change..."
Who are you to decide that our government needs to change? Our forefathers fought and died for this system that has survived even in the face of so many people trying to game it and destroy it. They gave their all simply for the idea of being free, never knowing if they would succeed or not. Many were quite literally blown apart, starved, maimed and deformed, blinded, all in the name of fighting for what they believed in - they did this without any promise of ever being free. They thought it was better to die as fighting free men than to live a relatively safe life where they were controlled by an all-powerful government.
Once they had won their freedom, they spent years reviewing what they had come from - complete government control - and devised a system that would not allow for it when the Constitution was followed correctly. These men were both brilliant and moral and they purposely gave us the system that they did because one fact has remained true from the moment man set foot on this earth: mankind does not change; he never has and never will. Man always seeks to control, therefore you cannot trust him.
For you to come in here and suggest that our government model needs to change when its not even being followed by the majority of our administration speaks loads of your understanding of why the government was established in the way that it was. You also fail to understand that once you change the government model, you've opened the door for it to be changed again, again, again, and again. "Change" becomes the problem because it became the solution.
Bluntly, anyone who suggests that the government needs to change is either extremely uneducated, pompous, and arrogant, or they are an enemy of this country who seeks to change it for their own benefit. Your entire post mirrors everything that history's greatest manipulators and tyrants have said time and time again.
So I like said, I did not aim my post at you - you are not the first person to suggest changing the government and you won't be the last. Every person who has tried, however, has proven to be an enemy of this country.
Because it wasn't directed at you, it was directed widely at anyone who suggests what you just did. Virtually every dictatorship, act of aggressive warfare, mass genocide, and mechanic of enslaving and controlling humanity begins with "Our government needs to change..."
Yea, and so did the revolutionary war.
Who are you to decide that our government needs to change
...
For you to come in here and suggest that our government model needs to change when its not even being followed by the majority of our administration speaks loads of your understanding of why the government was established in the way that it was. You also fail to understand that once you change the government model, you've opened the door for it to be changed again, again, again, and again. "Change" becomes the problem because it became the solution.
I posed questions, I asked for feedback, I openly admitted that I was thinking outloud and spitballing. I did not "come in here and suggest that our government model needs to change" I asked what others thought on a subject I had been pondering. Read my posts and find one instance where I advocated anything vs bringing it up for discussion. I'll wait.
Bluntly, anyone who suggests that the government needs to change is either extremely uneducated, pompous, and arrogant, or they are an enemy of this country who seeks to change it for their own benefit. Your entire post mirrors everything that history's greatest manipulators and tyrants have said time and time again.
I'm clearly all of those things for asking questions.
You're a jackass. But hey, no offense.
VooDoo6Actual
10-04-11, 12:59
Come on gents I implore/entreat you, keep it civil and in your CORTEX brain....
People here are smart and know the angles.
Don't make it personal.
Roll w/ it and exchange ideas rather than personal attacks.
The difference between the American Revolution and the aspirations of almost every other revolution in history was that ours was the first and one of the only ever to establish a government where power was distributed among states and the states(and the residents) were sovereign, not the Fed Gov.
Most revolutionaries, including the dopes protesting Wall St, profess a "elite" ruling class that promises, once given complete power, to establish social justice by confiscated the property of those who have earned it to give to those who have not.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." - Karl Marx
What is never mentioned and always forgotten is the atrocities that history has shown to be inevitable with this course of action.
So, a change to something new is not what we need. Going back to the proven political ideals of the Dec of Ind and the Constitution along with a truly free market economy is.
J8127, I applaud you for asking questions. I ask questions all the time, some of which I already know the answers but I like to have my beliefs challenged. Some questions, I don't know and I love to learn. Some people seem to be threatened by lack of groupthink ("you ask ______, then you must be _____"). Whatever. To answer your question, I would echo it isn't the system but the people that are broken. Again, whatever. The government will never be what it was intended to be; it'll never go back to what it was.
Yea, and so did the revolutionary war.
And who started the Revolutionary war? England did (we simply declared independence), the same country who used the "government needs to change" line to slowly make obsolete the Magna Carta (which, ironically, is exactly what your question is asking in regards to the United States and the Constitution). Your point?
I posed questions, I asked for feedback, I openly admitted that I was thinking outloud and spitballing. I did not "come in here and suggest that our government model needs to change" I asked what others thought on a subject I had been pondering. Read my posts and find one instance where I advocated anything vs bringing it up for discussion. I'll wait.
If you ask a stupid question, you get stupid answers. Our government model (not what it has functionally become) is a barebones system where the Federal government only has the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Therefore, by deduction, you are either a) supporting anarchy (lack of rule) or b) increased Federal powers - that is what a change in model would be. You obviously aren't for anarchy, therefore any of your "changes" would result in more Federal power. Ergo, you're complaining about the abuse power in the Federal government and then trying to fix that problem with more Federal government. Yet again, this is classically what every dictatorship has done throughout history and it always starts with "Our government is out of date and needs to be 'fixed'...".
I'm clearly all of those things for asking questions.
I love this statement - we actually have a live demonstration of progressive liberalism: Ask a question, even if it's based on a fundamentally flawed assumption, and disregard anything that points out it's irrelevant. Over time, that question becomes truth because it's never refuted and, through repeated exposure, it becomes branded into the minds of the people who read it. Want an example? Ninety-something percent of Americans think the United States government is a democracy when it in fact is not.
The word "democracy" appears nowhere in any of our founding documents and, through reading the Federalist Papers and various memoirs, you'll find it was left out on purpose. The president knows this, Congress knows this, the administration knows this, yet they keep repeating to people that our nation was "founded on democracy." Why? Because if they convince enough people that this is a democracy, then they'll quickly find that the Constitution doesn't work with democracy and it lets them make Unconstitutional laws with the support of the public. They then proceed to call this country's laws "outdated" and "in need of fixing" (sound familiar?). And so it goes every day that people believe that it's the Constitution and our government model that are wrong and not those abusing it.
Even your own argument confuses the flaws of the government model with corrupt people who aren't obeying the system itself. Virtually every abuse in our government can be traced back up the line, so to speak, to an Unconstitutional provision or use of power. Using those same examples as reasons of why our government model is "broke" is beyond absurd. These people aren't obeying the founding laws of our nation, so why would any changes to those laws make them any different? It wouldn't. This is the very premise of our Constitution, yet you completely gloss over it.
You're a jackass. But hey, no offense.
None taken - my standardized test scores and track record say otherwise.
A little informed rant:
Some of you need to remember a few things. No form of government, no matter how good or bad, has had the impact on legal, economic, and social freedom as ours has had. If anything, the people who have moved to more socialistic problems have caused many of these problems discussed above. So called liberal universities are the most restricted places in America in terms of free speech.
So called liberal economic policies, particularly All-In Keynesian policies are slowly bleeding us all out. Obamacare, QE2, bailouts, the wealth deals with Chrysler, etc have all increased uncertainty (and yeah, Bush did some of those too). They've increased uncertainty. Uncertainty is the death of an economy whose real currency is confidence.
And some of you need to remember that at least some of it still works despite all that crap. I've built 2 successful software companies, and one non profit. I've created probably over 100 white collar jobs. I'm still crazy enough to go out and build stuff and try to make it better for me an others. What I'm sick of are the doucheheads think that reducing freedom is the answer. Reducing those freedoms makes it less likely every year that people like me will keep building companies. Less likely that we'll keep going out and pushing. Building a business is damn hard. It's harder when I gotta fight the Man all the damn time too. I may not know shooting or gunnin like many people here, but I know how to get a group of people together to BUILD something, to generate wealth, jobs, security. I stay awake at night worrying about my crew. I work 80 hour weeks, don't see my wife and kid, have high blood pressure, don't have retirement benefits given, I have no job security. And yet the economic freedom that I have is the same that I try to provide to others. The freedom to CHOOSE. I'm tired of being demonized for success (yeah, I make a bit now), and I'm tired of weasels who want what I have along with better working hours, lower risk, better benefits without ever having to make the kind of decisions that I make that daily can enhance or destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of people. Stop whining. Go build something.
We don't need a change in our form of government unless it's TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE WELFARE/ENTITLEMENT STATE.
P.S. I am actually in my lane. I've got degrees in Finance, Business Administration, and Economics. I've built companies and jobs. Worse, I'm a former liberal who maybe grew up and saw how things actually work vs how maybe I want them to work in my silly naivete.
A little informed rant:
Some of you need to remember a few things. No form of government, no matter how good or bad, has had the impact on legal, economic, and social freedom as ours has had. If anything, the people who have moved to more socialistic problems have caused many of these problems discussed above. So called liberal universities are the most restricted places in America in terms of free speech.
So called liberal economic policies, particularly All-In Keynesian policies are slowly bleeding us all out. Obamacare, QE2, bailouts, the wealth deals with Chrysler, etc have all increased uncertainty (and yeah, Bush did some of those too). They've increased uncertainty. Uncertainty is the death of an economy whose real currency is confidence.
And some of you need to remember that at least some of it still works despite all that crap. I've built 2 successful software companies, and one non profit. I've created probably over 100 white collar jobs. I'm still crazy enough to go out and build stuff and try to make it better for me an others. What I'm sick of are the doucheheads think that reducing freedom is the answer. Reducing those freedoms makes it less likely every year that people like me will keep building companies. Less likely that we'll keep going out and pushing. Building a business is damn hard. It's harder when I gotta fight the Man all the damn time too. I may not know shooting or gunnin like many people here, but I know how to get a group of people together to BUILD something, to generate wealth, jobs, security. I stay awake at night worrying about my crew. I work 80 hour weeks, don't see my wife and kid, have high blood pressure, don't have retirement benefits given, I have no job security. And yet the economic freedom that I have is the same that I try to provide to others. The freedom to CHOOSE. I'm tired of being demonized for success (yeah, I make a bit now), and I'm tired of weasels who want what I have along with better working hours, lower risk, better benefits without ever having to make the kind of decisions that I make that daily can enhance or destroy the livelihoods of hundreds of people. Stop whining. Go build something.
We don't need a change in our form of government unless it's TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THE WELFARE/ENTITLEMENT STATE.
P.S. I am actually in my lane. I've got degrees in Finance, Business Administration, and Economics. I've built companies and jobs. Worse, I'm a former liberal who maybe grew up and saw how things actually work vs how maybe I want them to work in my silly naivete.
This is a good post!
.... why doesn't some one try to defend the system we have since it's so perfect.
I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed "the system" is perfect.
The criticism of your musings has basically centered around the fact that many of the problems libertarians have with "the system" originate from the way the Constitution has been subverted to create central controlling authorities. The has been done by Marxist statists. Using the mangled "system" to affect change palatable to us isn't "conservative," most definitely isn't "libertarian," and is out of keeping with the traditions of liberty and states rights that has kept this country as free as it is for so long.
I didn't directly call you a Marxist or a statist, but the basis of your thesis, your proposal for effecting suitable change, and your hackneyed use of argumentum ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad misericordiam in defense of your proposition and as response to criticism is almost identical to the argumentative style of progressives.
Rather than branding me a heretic for having some thoughts of my own (heaven forbid).....
:suicide2:
You guys have gone off the deep end with how you have taken my posts, and I don't know what to say to communicate my intent. For about the fifth time, I am not advocating anything nor am I blaming the model for the mess we are in. I am legitimately looking for others thoughts or experiences on the matters I am wondering about. I ask because I DONT KNOW and want to hear the thoughts of people with an education and experience like noops, it is not to plead ad ignorantium to argue a point. I don't have a point, I have questions and rather than assume anything I want to hear what others think. No matter how many time I say that though, you guys keep taking it as "is it? is it? but is it? but is it? is it?" I keep asking questions because nobody is answering them, they continue to join the dogpile.
Asking questions and trying to learn and have a discussion is not a liberal progressive conspiracy to inspire marxism for god's sake. Look at the responses in this thread; marxism, liberal progressive, who are you to..., what makes you think..., extremely uneducated, pompous, and arrogant, or they are an enemy of this country, weasel, demonized for success, etc... Really? Because I tried to ask some questions on an internet forum?
Yet not a single one of you can show me where I said I wanted a bigger federal government, or blamed our government model for the unconstitutional abuses that have taken place, think I can do better, or ANY of the assumptions you have all made about me or my beliefs. If my semantics or word choices bother you, I apologize, but stop assuming I have any intent other than to see what others think. My questions have not been rhetorical to form an argument, they are genuine questions from some one looking to expand his political beliefs past the Ron Paul webpage.
variablebinary
10-05-11, 05:07
My concern with suggestions on changing our system is, more often than not, these suggested changes are fueled by a feeling that one person's or a group's cores ideas need to be expedited into action or law.
It doesn't matter if you are a dummycrat or repugnantcan, this line of thinking leads to dictatorships.
What really needs to happen is people need to take an interest in voting for people that don't want to wreck this country.
Remember, every asshole in office was put their with an election. Just vote their asses out. That is the best way to fix things.
montanadave
10-05-11, 06:24
The difference between the American Revolution and the aspirations of almost every other revolution in history was that ours was the first and one of the only ever to establish a government where power was distributed among states and the states(and the residents) were sovereign, not the Fed Gov.
And the government they established, codified in the Articles of Confederation, proved an abject failure.
Thus the necessity of a somewhat clandestine gathering of colonial elites who crafted the Constitution establishing a strong centralized government which was subsequently (and barely) ratified by a thin majority.
Let's not rewrite history.
What I am wondering though is if it may be out of date. I don't mean the freedoms it protects or the principles behind it, but just the government structure that we have or rather, are supposed to have.Well , which is it the model we have or the model we are supposed to have, there is a large difference.
Specially I mean the local-state-federal dynamic, I'm not sure it's the best for the modern world anymore. Today I can be anywhere in the country in 6 hours. I can communicate instantly to anyone, anywhere in the world whenever I want. What is your point? there were people who lived on the borders back then who could be in another state in a short time. Are you saying that back then because they were so close to a border, something should have been different for them? What really has changed besides technology? Nothing, people have complained throughout the ages about taxes, food , wars, disease, so again what REALLY has changed. I assume you are pro second amendment, but we are no longer using muskets, so does that mean we something has changed and we should not have the second. How about the first, we now have radio, tv, and the internet, so maybe the first is no longer relevant. How about search and seizure, we must not have anything to fear anymore because of our modern society so number four no longer applies, right? I can go on and on but please tell me what is really out of date.
With those abilities, is it really the right answer that a mega issue like abortion can vary state to state? That is kind of the point. If one state wants one thing and another state wants something different then they can do that without the fed to worry about. Then you as the individual can choose whatever state they want by whatever criteria works for you.
I'm not saying I want the federal government to decide, that's the last thing I want, but maybe we need a system where the states can make decisions that become national law. Yes, I realize this is called a constitutional amendment but that's a pretty serious event and I'm not totally sure it can even happen anymore. I would almost think that we could replace the federal senate and house with the state congresses. Something like abortion gets voted on by each state, majority verdict becomes the national law.
Obviously this isn't a perfect system, it might even suck, I'm just spit balling.
But I think the system we have has trouble keeping up with the times, and it has left a lot of room for local and state governments to infringe on rights more so than the feds. Why can I carry a weapon in Washington but not California, or get an abortion in one state but not the next state over. Gay marriage, income vs sales tax, nfa items, etc etc. In 1776 trying to move from New Jersey to Arizona would probably get you killed but today I could pack up, relocate, and establish residency in another state by the end of the day. I'm not sure that allowing the laws to vary so much is practical anymore.
In addition to that, there are so many local and state laws that are ridiculously out of date. I'm sure I can find a city where doggy style is illegal or driving barefoot is. Yea that may have worked when you were born, lived, and died in the same city but does it work today?
I wonder if it would work better if our constitution, while still protecting the same rights it always has, were modified to bring the states in line with each other and made us more one nation and less 50 states, and I think that could be done by empowering the states to make national decisions rather than a ridiculously out of control federal government like we have.
Am I insane?
I think you do not understand why it was set up the way it was. You seem to just want everything to be the same every where and have decisions made by a mob rule (democracy). I have to go , but I will come back to this when I have some more time. Please dont take any of this personal.
Abrxas- Thank you, you're post is what I was looking for when I started this.
Well , which is it the model we have or the model we are supposed to have, there is a large difference.
Very true, perhaps this ends up being a two part discussion, one where we have the government we are supposed to have, and one where we have the one we do have.
What is your point? there were people who lived on the borders back then who could be in another state in a short time. Are you saying that back then because they were so close to a border, something should have been different for them? What really has changed besides technology? Nothing, people have complained throughout the ages about taxes, food , wars, disease, so again what REALLY has changed. I assume you are pro second amendment, but we are no longer using muskets, so does that mean we something has changed and we should not have the second. How about the first, we now have radio, tv, and the internet, so maybe the first is no longer relevant. How about search and seizure, we must not have anything to fear anymore because of our modern society so number four no longer applies, right? I can go on and on but please tell me what is really out of date.
Well that's the question, is any of it? Is it still the best answer, and how does it address more modern concerns? If some one says to you, "they didn't have machine guns and JAVELINE missiles in 1776, so the 2A doesn't address those" or something along those lines, what is the answer? And again I ask sincerely because I don't know to answer that even though I generally disagree with that logic.
That is kind of the point. If one state wants one thing and another state wants something different then they can do that without the fed to worry about. Then you as the individual can choose whatever state they want by whatever criteria works for you.
Do you think that could divide us with how easy that is to accomplish now? If all the gays move to New York to get married and all the gun owners move to Arizona do it just polorize us even worse than we have become? Is this a possibiliy to just accept?
I think you do not understand why it was set up the way it was. You seem to just want everything to be the same every where and have decisions made by a mob rule (democracy). I have to go , but I will come back to this when I have some more time. Please dont take any of this personal.
I get why it was set up the way it was, I'm just looking for people's opinions on if it is still the best, without claiming I know of a better way. I don't want everything decided by mob rule, I understand the difference between a democracy and a republic, but I have been wondering if it would be better, for at least major issues, to be more uniform across the nation.
Yet not a single one of you can show me where I said I wanted a bigger federal government
You seem to really enjoy playing semantics and being disingenuous. You've stated a few times now that you want things to be more uniform across the nation and that the government model might be outdated. The only way to bring things in line with your argument is to give the federal government more power to make them uniform, since by definition they will not be uniform as long as the states have the power to vary widely as they do. Yes, you are quite readily advocating a bigger federal government.
You seem to really enjoy playing semantics and being disingenuous. You've stated a few times now that you want things to be more uniform across the nation and that the government model might be outdated. The only way to bring things in line with your argument is to give the federal government more power to make them uniform, since by definition they will not be uniform as long as the states have the power to vary widely as they do. Yes, you are quite readily advocating a bigger federal government.
Just stop dude, I did not say any of those things, I have even said the exact opposite in many cases. It's not arguing semantics when you are putting words in my mouth/fingers.
Things being more uniform is something I have been wondering about, aloud. I did not come in here and argue for it as if it were the only way to save the world, I asked what others thought.
I then said two or three times I do not want a more powerful federal government and thought aloud if it could be achieved between the states.
You have contributed absolutly nothing to this thread other than your judgements, insults, and incorrect assumptions about me. If it bothers you so goddamn much, then go away.
Things being more uniform is something I have been wondering about, aloud. I did not come in here and argue for it as if it were the only way to save the world, I asked what others thought.
How many times are you going to post this? If you are asking about making things more "uniform," then by definition it requires federal government oversight - that IS an increase of federal government and it is typical liberal rhetoric (as others have already pointed out to you).
You seem so bent on stating "I never actually said to 'increase federal government'" that you miss the fact that the only way to do what you're implying is to increase it - both are the same.
If you're truly not seeing it for yourself, then explain how it would be possible to make the states conform uniformly without central (federal) government regulation?
How many times are you going to post this? If you are asking about making things more "uniform," then by definition it requires federal government oversight - that IS an increase of federal government and it is typical liberal rhetoric (as others have already pointed out to you).
You seem so bent on stating "I never actually said to 'increase federal government'" that you miss the fact that the only way to do what you're implying is to increase it - both are the same.
If you're truly not seeing it for yourself, then explain how it would be possible to make the states conform uniformly without central (federal) government regulation?
I'm going to post it as many times as you make me because you and others continue to just ignore it, when are you going to accept that I am trying to have a discussion and learn from others and stop attacking me, my intelligence, my views, or my allegiance to America as if I am advocating anything? That's the same fallacy I am accused of.
Rather than the above insults and judgements, you could have pointed out that you don't see a way it could be done without increasing federal power instead of assuming that I must want an increase in federal power. Do YOU see THAT difference?
And no, I don't see a way either, as even if the states did it amongs themselves that is still essentially federal action, which you could have brought up three pages ago as a discussion point rather than the course of action you went with. Given your high standardized test scores, I would love to hear your thoughts on other questions I have raised, as for about the fifth time, I posted them with the genuine intent of learning what others thought, not for arguing a point that I am trying to advocate. I welcome anyone to prove it all completely wrong without the name calling, assumptions, and accusations.
"You sound like a liberal marx loving enemy of America" isn't an answer. "I think that wouldn't work because of x, and if allowed to play out like the constitution intends for it to, y would happen." is.
I'm going to post it as many times as you make me because you and others continue to just ignore it, when are you going to accept that I am trying to have a discussion and learn from others and stop attacking me, my intelligence, my views, or my allegiance to America as if I am advocating anything? That's the same fallacy I am accused of.
No one here is attacking you specifically, but rather your actions. What you fail to realize is that you're the millionth person to ask this question and you're using argument tactics typical of liberals (not that you are one). Your question has been answered ten thousand times over, not just in the context of American history, but world history as well. To ask it again shows ignorance in the area; it's akin to questioning gravity for the sake of questioning it.
The question you are asking attempts to create a problem when there is no actual problem. If you have (or had) studied American history, you'd realize that the problems you perceive are not actual problems, but rather the trade-offs of having a system such as ours. Those benefits far outweigh the negatives, because the system, when obeyed, limits federal government involvement and allows for the most personal freedoms (or rather, protects those God-given rights that the people possess from birth).
If you had presented an actual solution and asked to debate it, then you wouldn't have received anywhere near the harsh response that you did, as the discussion would have been specific and limited to simply your suggestion. Instead, you broadly and vaguely suggest (by asking, therefore implying that the question is based on a truth) that a too-powerful government should be changed under the guise of making states more compliant... which by definition cannot be done. Going back to the gravity example, it's as if you've questioned gravity in its entirety because there are things that we don't know about it. Instead of focusing on one specific area and providing a better solution for that specific area, you broadly treat (through your question wording) the entire theory as unacceptable when you're not even sure if it's incorrect in the first place. It therefore ends up as nothing more than begging the question.
I am not trying to insult you, my responses would be the same if a shooting partner of mine muzzle-swept me at a range. There are some things that carry too great of consequences to blindly entertain as open-ended ideas, your original question being one of them. I am not the only person here to have responded to you in a manner you perceive as harsh, as this has been debated quite thoroughly not only on this board, but for the last 230+ years. It's not a casual question nor is it something you can hope to solve on an internet forum; it is the underlying principle to what this country was founded on. Changing that foundation will destroy the country that was built upon it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.