I appreciate the response, Mike, I don't agree with your conclusion, but your presentation was honest and straight forward and I fully agree with your advice to read more and to do so with an open mind.
I'd ask you to consider the problems associated with the Articles of Confederation and how a weak central government might be effective today?
The founders in the late 18th Century found it necessasry that the AofC be revised, and ultimately replaced them with our Constitution. Would not 50 individual states under a new such AofC soon devolve into nations with their own agendas?
Thanks for your response and I'm glad it was well received.
I would suggest that you read what you can about the events leading up to the Convention at Annapolis. The characterization that the Constitution was the result of all of the founders getting together and proposing that the AoC be dissolved is just not the way it happened. Pay particular attention to Madison and Hamilton and their association early in the revision.
What you will find is that there was a lot of mistrust especially from the delegates from NY. Some of them were writing letters in code because they felt there was a conspiracy going on.
Also look at the propaganda (especially today) around Shay's rebellion. It was billed (read washington's letters ESPECIALLY any correspondence you can find with Knox) as the reason that the AoC was not sufficient. The reality is actually the opposite. The handling of the situation proved that the states could deal with rebellions. The quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed..." that is actually talking about Shay's rebellion.
Do I think the AoC was sufficient? No. But I think it was fixable. In fact the delegates sent to the Philadelphia Convention were not actually granted the authority (there were 3 exceptions) to write a new document. There was actually quite a bit of contention about that.
And for the 50 different states devolving into 50 separate nations? I'm not sure. I think you might see some states come and go but I think that in general, if the federal government lived up to its charter that we would be fine. The problems we face today are no worse than what we would be facing. Simply put, does the government of today do what you want. Saying that we live in the best country in the world is fine and all (and I agree) but that's not the measuring stick. Does this country provide you the liberty you desire? (Or the ability to live in commune with those around you, if that is your desire.)