Discuss this quote... If you dare?

[Reasoning]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

 

[loosecannon]

boy those were the good ole days!

Nowadays we can't buy bread without them.

 

[Avatar4321]

It means despite what politicians do or say, life goes on.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Our government is a self perpetuating bunch of retards. If they all just went away, we'd all be the better for it.

 

[loosecannon]

Our government is a self perpetuating bunch of retards. If they all just went away, we'd all be the better for it.

Like if we blew the top ten floors off the Capitol nobody would notice?

"The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories," Bolton said. "If it lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference."

John Bolton In His Own Words: Bush's UN Ambassador Nominee Condemns United Nations

 

[Reasoning]

I think the country would be better off if the states were their own countries.

Less powerful and less likely to go around the world invading everything.

Also open to the idea of maybe not each separate state as they are drawn now being entirely separate but maybe if the US was split into maybe 4 or more parts from what it is now?

Thoughts?

 

[JBeukema]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Questions-About-American-History-Supposed/dp/0307346684]Amazon.com: 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask (9780307346681): Thomas E. Woods Jr.: Books[/ame]

see chapter six

 

[Annie]

I think the country would be better off if the states were their own countries.

Less powerful and less likely to go around the world invading everything.

Also open to the idea of maybe not each separate state as they are drawn now being entirely separate but maybe if the US was split into maybe 4 or more parts from what it is now?

Thoughts?

History shows how well that worked for the Greeks and Europe. No, that is not the answer.

 

[Annie]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

Seems to me that Franklin was admonishing the politicians at the convention that if they didn't stop squabbling and find a solution, the people would and it might not be pretty.

 

[xotoxi]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

Ben was just pointing out the stupidity of the proles.

 

[goldcatt]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

Ben was a wise man. He knew the state of the Confederacy was, in fact, anarchy and the people wanted leadership and a solution to the madness. If you go back to the context (I keep telling folks context matters), Ben was not speaking to history. He was speaking to his compatriots, arguing endlessly for their respective camps when the people and the nation needed a compromise and a workable solution, not a "side" to win. They, personally, and their petty squabbles were replaceable.

Now that I think about it, there's something in what he said that speaks to our current political situation after all.

 

[editec]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

I think that Ben was overstating the case.

Anarchy?

There was no state of anarchy in the colonies.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I think the country would be better off if the states were their own countries.

Less powerful and less likely to go around the world invading everything.

Also open to the idea of maybe not each separate state as they are drawn now being entirely separate but maybe if the US was split into maybe 4 or more parts from what it is now?

Thoughts?

Thoughts?
Well...that is, pardon me, ...dumb.
As designed the Federal Gov't is an absolute necessity in the security and continuity of the nation. The problem is not that there is a central government, but that it has grown to large and faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar beyond the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

[zzzz]

The problem folks, in my humble opinion, are that the 2 party system of governing has become unworkable. Two things need to be done to bring back a more responsive government; Abolition of political parties, and the elimination of lobbyists in Washington.

An abolition of political parties would effectively make each representative beholden to his constituency not to the central party. The committees in Congress would not be split up by party but be filled by people that belong in the committee as voted by the whole body. The Majority leader (would need a new name) and other leaders would be voted in by the whole not by the ruling party.

Elimination of lobbyists has been addressed before. By eliminating lobbyists in Washington this would allow the peoples voices to be heard by the representatives. Right now the lobbyists have a monopoly on them and the people cannot be heard.

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the
anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if
our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can
just as easily do without us."

~ Benjamin Franklin

This is one of the Founders making it clear that a powerful central governement is not needed,

and useless.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I think the country would be better off if the states were their own countries.

Less powerful and less likely to go around the world invading everything.

Also open to the idea of maybe not each separate state as they are drawn now being entirely separate but maybe if the US was split into maybe 4 or more parts from what it is now?

Thoughts?

That's an incredibly bad idea.

For more than 225 years being one nation has worked wonders. The idea that breaking us up will stop wars is just batshitcrazy.

 

[goldcatt]

I think the country would be better off if the states were their own countries.

Less powerful and less likely to go around the world invading everything.

Also open to the idea of maybe not each separate state as they are drawn now being entirely separate but maybe if the US was split into maybe 4 or more parts from what it is now?

Thoughts?

That's an incredibly bad idea.

For more than 225 years being one nation has worked wonders. The idea that breaking us up will stop wars is just batshitcrazy.

Yep. That would just make the tiny little pieces ripe for the picking. Divided we fall.

Another reason the folks at the time of Ben's quote were interested in cementing the Confederacy together into one workable nation. Security.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think our central question has been overstepped for far too long.

The central question is: should we rely on the government for the security (economic and literal) of this nation or should we weaken our central government and turn over those responsibilities to monied interests like corporations?

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I think our central question has been overstepped for far too long.

The central question is: should we rely on the government for the security (economic and literal) of this nation or should we weaken our central government and turn over those responsibilities to monied interests like corporations?

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people.

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.

And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.

 

[goldcatt]

I think our central question has been overstepped for far too long.

The central question is: should we rely on the government for the security (economic and literal) of this nation or should we weaken our central government and turn over those responsibilities to monied interests like corporations?

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people.

Seems Conservatives are implicitly in favor of the corporate model. Liberals have seen the government (an institution responsible and reliant on the people) as the protector and defender of our security. A government can't be removed if they fail at thier jobs. Corporations are motivated by profit and therefore not responsible to the people. Success is how you make profit, if the people that buy your product or service are unhappy, they will find some one else, thus forcing the private industry to perform at very high standards or lose all profit. The best you can hope for from the government is mediocraty.

And since you are an adult and have had to deal with some form of government you know that true.

Everything centers around balance. Our whole system is designed to be balanced. I don't think the argument is (or should be) whether everything should be run by government or everything run by private interests, any more than everything should be run by the Executive and the other two branches can go fly a kite. The two act, or should act, as a check on each other's extremes and abuses.

Only extremists want all or nothing, by definition. The argument is (or should be) more about the balance between public and private and whether the current proportions are the correct ones to create an efficient, functional system that addresses the current needs of the State and of the People.

Obviously we're not necessarily going to agree on where the balance should lie. But failing to recognize the inherent value of balance and compromise at the expense of the nation is pretty much what Ole Ben was warning against.