The Life Span of a Republic

[GoRon]

Personally, I feel like if you're not paying into the system, then you get no say on how the money's spent.

That just makes too much sense. It is unbelievable how on one hand everyone bitches about government spending then on the other they get up in arms about one way to squash it.

Or how about we dump the graduated income tax and tax everyone evenly. Everybody has to pay a percentage. If all those that are now a burden on the system had to pay into the system they may not be so fast to vote for the politicians promising them all the goodies.

 

[Baron Holbach4]

Key events bolstering the power of a central government

An outstanding thread. Many compelling insights and comments. America's constitutional republic was created under strange circumstances. When the state delegates of the Confederation agreed to meet at the Convention in Philadelphia and revise the Articles of Confederation, there was no plan to completely overhaul the Articles and replace it with a new constitution. Instead, the delegates ignored their mandate and created a new constitution in secret. This was a pivotal point in America's young history. Once the new Constitution took hold, it was only a matter of time before the sovereign states would clash with the sovereign union. When the North defeated the South in the Civil War, the federal government's power was greatly strengthened and centralized. Additional centralized power would occur in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment (federal income tax) and the 17th amendment (direct election of senators); and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Further events would transpire resulting in a bigger, more centralized, and oppressive federal government: WWI, Roosevelt's New Deal, the National Firearms Act, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, LBJ's Great Society, the 1968 Gun Control Act, War on Drugs, 9/11, and America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[BigG]

Derek and the ones suggesting a qualification to vote are right, else the rats are guarding the cookie jar, and have been for a good while.

And no, the United States is not a democracy, as some of you keep asserting. Mob rule was well known and rejected by the founding fathers.

 

[lcplcpk]

Awesome discussion

This is truly intelligent discussion on a subject that is very dear to me; I am thrilled to find this level of thinking. This is my first post to this forum I wish I had visited earlier; I have been lurking on another firearms forum that has deteriorated to the point of nearly worthless. I hope that I can contribute at least a small fraction of what I learn.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Paying into the system? Since when did "he who contributes the most to support the biggest most expensive and corrupt bureaucratic empire" become something to be esteemed above being educated, owning property and achieving financial independence?

I'm all for having an educated populace, but I believe the literacy tests we used to use to qualify people to vote are looked down upon now.

I'm of the opinion that the federal government shouldn't be in the business of wealth redistribution. However, if it must be this way, then I truly believe that a system where those who will be benefiting from the transfer have more of a voice than those losing something is fundamentally corrupt.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Because this is part of the problem: 47% of the population pays either no income taxes, or receives money back. Their vote counts as much as those people who contribute a million/year each.

Our system certainly isn't perfect, but substituting one-person-one-vote with a corporate system (which is what you're advocating) is hardly a solution. We aren't a corporation, we're a nation in which every citizen is a stakeholder. You can either figure out some way to get the citizens engaged and understanding the issues, or go back to feudalism. I seem to remember studying in History class about a revolution by characters in white wigs over that.

But seriously: our current political system is based on money equals speech and offers very few limitations to the influence of big money on our elections. That has managed to tilt the playing field grossly in the direction of the classes you wish to have all of the power. I don't see how that's fostered any of the positive qualities the opening post equated to small-r republicanism. The moneyed classes have just managed to vote themselves more government handouts than the poor have ever dreamed of.

And no, the United States is not a democracy, as some of you keep asserting. Mob rule was well known and rejected by the founding fathers.

No one thinks we are a pure Athenian democracy, but democratic elections have been a strong thread in our system since early in our history. That's why Jefferson's party was called "Democratic Republicans." They advocated a republic in which the representatives are elected in democratic elections. The Electoral College and election of Senators by the state legislatures were the only exceptions in the constitution, with the EC being the only non-democratic vestige left today.

Now, the states often set the bar higher with property requirements, etc, but those systems weren't tenable. We have moved in the direction of universal sufferage over our history for very good reasons. Having unempowered segments of the population is not conducive of domestic tranquility or good for the general welfare.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Having unempowered segments of the population is not conducive of domestic tranquility or good for the general welfare.

Flipside, having those "empowered" segments gang up on everyone else, aligning around the principle of largess @ public expense hasn't worked that well either.

 

[BigG]

No one thinks we are a pure Athenian democracy, ...

No offense, Molon, but you wouldn't know it to read some of the writings, here. Mob rule seems to sound like a good idea to some posters.

 

[Old Dog]

Property owners are the only members of a society with a stake in continued liberty.

I never thought I'd see on comment such as this in this forum. All I can say in response to this is, if you really feel this way, that's very sad. As it stands, most of us don't really own our "own" property anyway -- the banks, the credit unions and the finance/mortgage companies do.

Voting is a right?

And if you think it not so, than you cannot believe in the concept, "All men are created equal."

Malone LaVeigh, excellent posts. It's almost a relief to see some reason applied in this thread.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

And if you think it not so, than you cannot believe in the concept, "All men are created equal."

I've got no problem with anyone voting -- blacks, women, gays, Republicans, etc. I do feel like our current system is broken, and from what I can tell one of the big issues is that of rational ignorance.

Example from when mom was mayor: gal gets elected to the city council on pro-environmental grounds -- Sierra Club backs her after reading her position paper and so forth, and she gets elected. Once in office, she decides to sell her votes to developers, and goes from wife-of-unemployed-man-about-to-lose-house to wife-of-unemployed-man-who-owns-4-houses (3 outside of the city limits so they don't need to be reported) and-a-new-airplane.

Everyone who cared was pissed. Now, $20,000 buys a lot of media coverage in a small town, so she reran on her pro-environment ticket and got reelected based on the claims in her ads, which were 100% fabricated.

That's the current political scene. MTV and all the news media tell folks it's their duty to go vote, they do, and in so doing they dilute the votes of those who care enough to watch city council meetings, or CSPAN, or whatever.

Now, on this particular point. I'm going to draw a scenario for you:

Washington State Voters: our schools are in crisis! Our children aren't getting the education they deserve, and the state is going bankrupt just trying to keep up. I've got a solution! Simply vote for ballot initiative 666 and we'll take a small portion of Bill Gates' wealth to fund our schools. Now, this sounds drastic, but even 2% of his net worth would be a huge help to our deserving children, and the charitable works of the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation show that he is already devoted to ducation...

Even if the initiative is "generous" in only taking 2% of the guy's net worth, it's still evil. Now, I hate Microsoft with the best of them, but running a system where the have-nots get to decide how to spend the money of the haves simply isn't viable long term.

Anyone should be eligible to vote, but they should have to qualify in order to do so. In my mind the vote of someone who has proven himself to be able to support himself and his own family without outside support (measure it how you will) should count for more than the crack whore down the street, or the illegal migrant worker sending most of his money out of the country. ESPECIALLY when the business of government has become deciding who gets the hand-outs, and how much they should be.

If the crack whore or the illegal immigrant want to vote, they're welcome to. All they need to do is prove that they're more than just friction in the system.

I'm of the opinion that "has more in savings than in debt" and "pays more in taxes than he sucks back out of the system" are both more workable than what we have now. And both seem fair to me.

And note that I'm not being elitist here -- with school loans and our mortgage the wife and I wouldn't be able to vote under the "positive net worth" system. But it still strikes me as fair, because one day we will.

 

[GoRon]

But seriously: our current political system is based on money equals speech and offers very few limitations to the influence of big money on our elections. That has managed to tilt the playing field grossly in the direction of the classes you wish to have all of the power.

Have you looked at the federal budget lately? It seems that redistributing from the haves to the have nots is the biggest portion of our budget. There also seems to be some confusion in that some equate tax breaks (keeping more of your property) with a handout.

 

[Old Dog]

I understand where you're coming from, Derek, and I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you've said.

MTV and all the news media tell folks it's their duty to go vote, they do, and in so doing they dilute the votes of those who care enough to watch city council meetings, or CSPAN, or whatever.

Thing is, there are plenty of well-educated, contributing members of society who are abreast of current events on the political scene -- who still make horrendous choices and get inept, incompetent or corrupt people elected who continue to screw things up ... Ever lived in Massachusetts, Illinois, California?

running a system where the have-nots get to decide how to spend the money of the haves simply isn't viable long term.

No, of course not, but we have let the system degenerate into this mode, and it didn't happen overnight.

In my mind the vote of someone who has proven himself to be able to support himself and his own family without outside support (measure it how you will) should count for more than the crack whore down the street, or the illegal migrant worker sending most of his money out of the country.

Well, I'd bet that most crack whores aren't registering to vote in droves, and you've got to be a citizen to vote ...

I'm of the opinion that "has more in savings than in debt" and "pays more in taxes than he sucks back out of the system" are both more workable than what we have now.

Gee, does the amount I owe on my house and my vehicles have to count?

If we're gonna "qualify" people to vote (on any other basis than mere citizenship or having attained the age of suffrage), a simple written test should suffice. Of course this test should not only include some of the basics from U.S. history, but also gauge a prospective voter's grasp of the electoral process and the current election issues and initiatives. Actually, if I had my 'druthers ... I'd permit only those who could actually speak English to vote, require at least a high school diploma or GED, proof of full-time employment or full-time student, and perhaps require a minimum of at least the previous two years paid into the federal/state income tax system.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Thing is, there are plenty of well-educated, contributing members of society who are abreast of current events on the political scene -- who still make horrendous choices and get inept, incompetent or corrupt people elected who continue to screw things up ... Ever lived in Massachusetts, Illinois, California?

I have lived in CA, actually.

It's not really in an "average" person's best interest to learn about the issues of the day. Or at least, you can make that economic argument and most voters seem to agree. Politics today isn't about issues, it's about sound-bites. The "political commentary" you see on TV isn't about issues, it's about "spin." Less "what do you think about that proposal" and more of "do you think this segment of the viewers will buy into that argument, and what do you think his opponent will do to counter it." Less "well that's an interesting approach that seems like it will solve the existing harms" and more "I don't see the teacher's union tolerating that -- what will this do to his numbers, do you think?"

And I don't see that changing. The best you can get is people voting their party across the ballot, or taking a voting guide from the NRA or Sierra Club or HCI the NAACP or AARP or someone in to the booth with them. People don't care enough to research the issues, unfortunately. I don't see that changing.

No, of course not, but we have let the system degenerate into this mode, and it didn't happen overnight.

And yet, if we continue on the path we're on we'll be insolvent and/or bankrupt in a couple of decades.

Well, I'd bet that most crack whores aren't registering to vote in droves, and you've got to be a citizen to vote ...

Remember the democratic activists who were rounding up homeless folks to vote in exchange for cartons of cigarettes last presedential election? Here's a nuce one for you (from here):

The politicization of the INS continued in the 2000 election. As documented by journalist Joseph Farah ,on Nov. 6, 2000, (one day before the national election) the California Democratic Party sent thousands (upwards of 4 million by some estimates) of mailers out to immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS. These non-citizens were informed, in both English and Spanish, that they were registered to vote as a Democrat and given a special identification card to "help...voting go more smoothly." Follow up investigations by the press pointed to the possible use of INS records to commit this massive voter fraud. How many of the recipients took advantage of the generous offer made by the Democrats is unknown, but based on the estimates it is quite possible that Gore's much touted popular vote win (by just under a million votes) could all be attributed to this scam alone. Flaws in the system continue to be used and expanded upon to give the Left an unfair advantage in elections and to undermine the legitimacy of our most fundamental American right.

Gee, does the amount I owe on my house and my vehicles have to count?

Do you have a better criteria? Something other than "if you've got a heartbeat and your momma had enough sense to give birth in the US, then your opinion on how the country is run really counts..."?

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Have you looked at the federal budget lately? It seems that redistributing from the haves to the have nots is the biggest portion of our budget.

I think "defense" is a bigger portion of the budget, unless you include ss and medicaid in "redistributing from the haves to the have nots." Problem with that is that those programs don't have a means test. I know several people on one or both who are not at all what you could call a "have not." I think that probably accounts for the majority.

What I was arguing against was the purported tendency of the "have nots" to vote themselves goodies from the commonwealth. But our political system is actually skewed toward the moneyed interests that can buy the media time and best campaign consultants. Survey after survey, as well as any casual observation reveals that the poor don't vote and it takes megabucks to run for political office in this country.

The redistributing that does exist actually falls more in the realm of bread and circuses for the masses than anything the poor are doing for themselves. The power base in this country is quite willing to commit a small portion of your and my money to keep a lid on things.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

IIRC, we have run right around 3.7% of GDP for defense spending for the last decade (including Iraq).

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

For once, I have to disagree with The Real Hawkeye: our Republic didn't "evolve" into a democracy--it devolved.

That aside, technology is so advanced now that the future dictatorships will know even more about their subjects than The Party did about Winston Smith. This is the last cycle, in other words. Once the UN disarms the rest of the world (and possibly the US, who knows?), the US will eventually follow the "sophisticated" path the other countries have taken.

The end result will be an immense amount of information controlled by the government, and extremely advanced weapons/armor controlled by the same. Commoners will be phased out of arms ownership until the power to fight back against tyranny simply isn't there.

Or, I suppose we can stick our heads in the sand, and deny that that's where things are going due to widespread compliance, complacency, and apathy. We can pretend we still live in a free country--it will make us feel better as we continue to decline, and that's all that matters: how we feel. Right?
__________________


Phetro figured out the dilemna the way I look at it. Combine the issues he talks about with the fact that money is a necessity of resistance (and the fact that there have been calls to end paper money, and backing for currency is long gone), and this is end game.

We have to have arms #1 in order to be able to resist. #2 is we must have cash to buy more arms, and ammunition, commo, etc.

In order to fight a dictatorship, or oligarchy which would arise, you need the ability to move with anonimity, the ability to have untraceable purchases, and the ability to get and cache arms.

If you have a chip in your body which tells a government computer where you are, you can't be anonymous. If a chip in your body allows you to make transactions, and without it there is no money, no transaction, you can't do business. If surveillance teams are constantly tracking people who say or do unauthorized things, you can't resist. If drugs are given to you from the time you are a small child that "regulate" behaviour, you cannot resist.

At that point, the only hope is a collapse of the system leading to everyone being "free."

But at that point, everyone is so dependent on the state, and the corporate institutions brought up around it to prop it up, that people will beg for the next leader.

This is the future. Not a future of the next ten or fifteen years, but of the next 200-300 years.

The only counter to this is to instill liberty and freedom into your youngins. Now. You have to teach them what liberty is. And that it is better to fight and die for liberty than to live as a slave. Then, you have to forge connections to others who feel the same way, not just in America, but all over the world.

It is the only way we can get our Republic back. It is the only way we can unltimately save ourselves. This isn't checkers. They played checkers in the 18th 19th and 20th centuries. As we move into a new and scary 21st century, the enemies of liberty are playing chess.

We must show them who the grandmaster is. Otherwise, mankind will sit in a darkages for atleast a thousand years.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If anyone is interested in learning more about the true rights of Americans they need to read more of the writings of the "Other Founders" of the United States--The Antifederalists!!!

The Antifederalists lost the debate a long time ago - and for a very good reason, the state-centric, state sovereignty model set up by the Articles of Confederation was a disaster. The Constitution wouldn't exist if the Articles of Confederation had worked.

 

[Art Eatman]

Has anybody addressed the issue of voter apathy? I recall, not too many election cycles in the past, when the city coucil/mayoral elections in Austin, Texas, had turnouts of 8% one time, and 11% the next. That means that some 4+% and 6% of the registered voters determined city policy.

City policy is that there be no gunshows on city property, as once was common. Lord luv a duk, the gun-owners of Austin are way more than any 6% of the eligible voters!

it doesn't matter how well-educated or informed is the electorate, if they don't bother to vote.

Art

"The world is run by those who show up."

 

[hugh damright]

The Antifederalists lost the debate a long time ago - and for a very good reason, the state-centric, state sovereignty model set up by the Articles of Confederation was a disaster. The Constitution wouldn't exist if the Articles of Confederation had worked.

The US Constitution is also a State sovereignty model, as expressed in Federalist #40:

"We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.

The truth is, that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation."

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

For once, I have to disagree with The Real Hawkeye: our Republic didn't "evolve" into a democracy--it devolved.

Point taken. Poor choice of words on my part.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

We haven't been a free land since 1861. Thank <> Abe for that.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Give that man a cigar.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

To those who consider states' rights to have been the cause of the civil war, and Lincoln to have been in the wrong on the issue, do you apply similar logic to the rights of states to allow gay marriage (MA for example), euthanasia (OR) or medical marijuana (CA)

Is Bush's DOJ wrong in fighting those states' rights? Or not?

You miss the point. To support State's rights is to be opposed to the Federal Government overriding State law, except where the Supremacy Clause actually authorizes same. Therefore, we State's rights folks would be opposed to the Federal Government nullifying a State law legalizing gay marriage, but many of us would then be perfectly within our rights, without losing one iota of logical consistency, to oppose such a State law at the State level. The point is, we oppose the Federal Government acting in areas it has no authority to act. Gay marriage would be one of those areas. Same for euthanasia and drug laws, and, in fact, most areas in which the Federal Government acts today.

P.S. The objection people have to gay marriage is simply that it is a linguistic nonsequitur from the get go. To "legalize" it, therefore, necessarily alters the meaning of the word marriage, in effect nullifying all marriages in the authentic sense of the word.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

We are fooling ourselves if we believe that we actually live in a truly free society today. We are not allowed to live our lives as we see fit.

G. Gordon Liddy astutely observed that the average native resident of Afghanistan is substantially more at liberty than your average modern day American. Let's say an Afghani wishes to open up a bakery. What does he need to do? Well, he simply needs to hang out a sign and start baking bread. That's it. He sells his bread for what the market will bear, and people buy it if they like it. He pays his employees a wage adequate to induce them to work for him, and they are free to find work elsewhere if the conditions and pay are not satisfactory to them. He may carry a real AK 47 to work every day (and a handgun on his hip), and keep it leaning against the wall behind the counter. He may then take it home with him slung over his shoulder at the end of the day. He may do all of these things, and the government doesn't care to know a thing about it. Not even the man's name and occupation.

P.S. Liddy wrote all that before we took over the country. I don't know how much of it holds true anymore.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

P.S. The objection people have to gay marriage is simply that it is a linguistic nonsequitur from the get go. To "legalize" it, therefore, necessarily alters the meaning of the word marriage, in effect nullifying all marriages in the authentic sense of the word.

Following around the bend and further away from the topic, who are you to decide what the meaning of the word is? If someone wants to consider himself married to a housecat and can find an organized body to sanctify it, it's not the government's or anyone else's business.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Key events bolstering the power of a central government

An outstanding thread. Many compelling insights and comments. America's constitutional republic was created under strange circumstances. When the state delegates of the Confederation agreed to meet at the Convention in Philadelphia and revise the Articles of Confederation, there was no plan to completely overhaul the Articles and replace it with a new constitution. Instead, the delegates ignored their mandate and created a new constitution in secret. This was a pivotal point in America's young history. Once the new Constitution took hold, it was only a matter of time before the sovereign states would clash with the sovereign union. When the North defeated the South in the Civil War, the federal government's power was greatly strengthened and centralized. Additional centralized power would occur in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment (federal income tax) and the 17th amendment (direct election of senators); and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Further events would transpire resulting in a bigger, more centralized, and oppressive federal government: WWI, Roosevelt's New Deal, the National Firearms Act, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, LBJ's Great Society, the 1968 Gun Control Act, War on Drugs, 9/11, and America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very well said. I agree with every word you've written. Are you sure you are not me?