Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[AVG-JOE]

I imagine many if not most or all libertarians would agree with that, but for me it is just common sense if you want a government for, of, and by the people and not one that governs the people.

It doesn't sound like you want to fix anything; overthrow is what you want if you don't want a government that governs anyone?

That made no sense at all....

We have laws that govern behavior. We have laws that govern any number of things...from what is aired on the public airwaves to what is in the drinking water....

I say this not trying to flame you....I'm not sure YOU know what you want.

Yes, I think I know what I want. I have lived a good long life now already and expect to continue it for awhile longer. I have seen much, watched much, understand much of good intentions creating many unintended negative consequences one of which is the United States teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. I have watched our freedoms whittled away and that trend is increasing at an alarming rate.

I want the government the Founders gave us. A federal government that would secure and protect our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would govern ourselves within the several states and the communities we choose to form. We would not have a king or dictator or authoritarian/totalitarian government telling us what rights and privileges we would be allowed to have. Our rights are unalienable. The privileges we should decide for ourselves.

In a book released (in 2009), Scott Rasmussen observed that, “The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century.” He added that “The American people don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves.” In Search of Self-Governance is available at Amazon.com.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Again politely asking the courtesy of the food fight moving to the flame zone so that a more civil discussion can continue on this thread.

Focusing on No. 5 on the list, for a bit, a number of members have checked that as desirable option.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Founders, using the people's money for any form of charity or benevolence at the federal level is corrupting to those in government. It is just too tempting to use it to increase the elected leaders' personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And when one does it, the next one almost has to go along or look like a heartless monster. It's kind of like earmarks. A person can philosophically reject them as irresponsible, but when everybody is grabbing money for their home districts, the politician doesn't want their own district to be left high and dry because after all it is their money too.

And the other unintended negative consequence is an electorate that becomes dependent on and develops a sense of entitlement to other people's money.

For whatever reason, that phenomenon seems to happen far less often and/or with less intensity at the state level.

So what do you think? In the interest of scaling back an unsustainably expensive federal government and eliminating the unintended negative consequences, if done slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those we have made dependent on the programs, would you agree to begin now to phase out federal entitlement and charity programs and transfer them to the states?

Which entitlements?

 

[idb]

<snip>

I want the government the Founders gave us. A federal government that would secure and protect our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would govern ourselves within the several states and the communities we choose to form. We would not have a king or dictator or authoritarian/totalitarian government telling us what rights and privileges we would be allowed to have. Our rights are unalienable. The privileges we should decide for ourselves.<snip>

Haven't you already got that?
Any law passed may be tested against the Constitution.
That's what the Founders gave you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again politely asking the courtesy of the food fight moving to the flame zone so that a more civil discussion can continue on this thread.

Focusing on No. 5 on the list, for a bit, a number of members have checked that as desirable option.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Founders, using the people's money for any form of charity or benevolence at the federal level is corrupting to those in government. It is just too tempting to use it to increase the elected leaders' personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And when one does it, the next one almost has to go along or look like a heartless monster. It's kind of like earmarks. A person can philosophically reject them as irresponsible, but when everybody is grabbing money for their home districts, the politician doesn't want their own district to be left high and dry because after all it is their money too.

And the other unintended negative consequence is an electorate that becomes dependent on and develops a sense of entitlement to other people's money.

For whatever reason, that phenomenon seems to happen far less often and/or with less intensity at the state level.

So what do you think? In the interest of scaling back an unsustainably expensive federal government and eliminating the unintended negative consequences, if done slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those we have made dependent on the programs, would you agree to begin now to phase out federal entitlement and charity programs and transfer them to the states?

Which entitlements?

All entitlements qt the federal level.

 

[Foxfyre]

<snip>

I want the government the Founders gave us. A federal government that would secure and protect our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would govern ourselves within the several states and the communities we choose to form. We would not have a king or dictator or authoritarian/totalitarian government telling us what rights and privileges we would be allowed to have. Our rights are unalienable. The privileges we should decide for ourselves.<snip>

Haven't you already got that?
Any law passed may be tested against the Constitution.
That's what the Founders gave you.

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

 

[idb]

<snip>

I want the government the Founders gave us. A federal government that would secure and protect our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would govern ourselves within the several states and the communities we choose to form. We would not have a king or dictator or authoritarian/totalitarian government telling us what rights and privileges we would be allowed to have. Our rights are unalienable. The privileges we should decide for ourselves.<snip>

Haven't you already got that?
Any law passed may be tested against the Constitution.
That's what the Founders gave you.

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

But if laws have to be able to be tested against the Constitution, and you're saying the rules as the stand aren't working, doesn't that mean that you are looking to change/reject the Constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

Haven't you already got that?
Any law passed may be tested against the Constitution.
That's what the Founders gave you.

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

But if laws have to be able to be tested against the Constitution, and you're saying the rules as the stand aren't working, doesn't that mean that you are looking to change/reject the Constitution?

No.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Again politely asking the courtesy of the food fight moving to the flame zone so that a more civil discussion can continue on this thread.

Focusing on No. 5 on the list, for a bit, a number of members have checked that as desirable option.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Founders, using the people's money for any form of charity or benevolence at the federal level is corrupting to those in government. It is just too tempting to use it to increase the elected leaders' personal power, prestige, influence, and personal fortune. And when one does it, the next one almost has to go along or look like a heartless monster. It's kind of like earmarks. A person can philosophically reject them as irresponsible, but when everybody is grabbing money for their home districts, the politician doesn't want their own district to be left high and dry because after all it is their money too.

And the other unintended negative consequence is an electorate that becomes dependent on and develops a sense of entitlement to other people's money.

For whatever reason, that phenomenon seems to happen far less often and/or with less intensity at the state level.

So what do you think? In the interest of scaling back an unsustainably expensive federal government and eliminating the unintended negative consequences, if done slowly and carefully so as not to break faith with those we have made dependent on the programs, would you agree to begin now to phase out federal entitlement and charity programs and transfer them to the states?

Which entitlements?

All entitlements qt the federal level.

All? I like Social Security. It has a dedicated tax, so it's not a part of the federal deficit, and I like the idea of having a basic retirement / disability program that follows me no matter which state I find a job in next.

Besides, I've already invested a LOT into that program... are my young neighbors asking me to simply give up that investment for the sake of the deficit?

 

[AVG-JOE]

<snip>

I want the government the Founders gave us. A federal government that would secure and protect our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would govern ourselves within the several states and the communities we choose to form. We would not have a king or dictator or authoritarian/totalitarian government telling us what rights and privileges we would be allowed to have. Our rights are unalienable. The privileges we should decide for ourselves.<snip>

Haven't you already got that?
Any law passed may be tested against the Constitution.
That's what the Founders gave you.

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

1860's

That's when the federal government began its takeover of state variety. The job got finished in the 1960's when states further proved that they could not be trusted to deal fairly with their populations, as they took a stab at 'separate but equal'.

With the proliferation of communication tools based on the internet, I believe the states can now be trusted, and a return to the constitution is ripe.

 

[midcan5]

In my opinion, implementing No. 5 and 6 would take care of most of it as we would again have public servants in government instead of career politicians.

That assumption is not only heartless and absurd, it would create a government of nincompoops guided only by power. Good people need a decent salary and a place to engage their creative knowledge. Why is it that the only meme that sticks in a conservative's head is the meme that all people act out of ulterior motives that are dependency driven? The idea that freedom and responsibility are the cures of all things forgets the fact we are dealing with humans here. Do conservatives know any humans? I sure as hell have to wonder. And please the founding fathers and mothers gave this nation a pretty ambiguous document in which actual evil (slavery) was OK, but it contained enough openings that rational empathy and community were possible.

Here's a founder who got it right, it is why he, Lincoln, and FDR are considered the best the nation has done so far.

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

 

[editec]

Haven't you already got that?
Any law passed may be tested against the Constitution.
That's what the Founders gave you.

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

1860's

That's when the federal government began its takeover of state variety. The job got finished in the 1960's when states further proved that they could not be trusted to deal fairly with their populations, as they took a stab at 'separate but equal'.

With the proliferation of communication tools based on the internet, I believe the states can now be trusted, and a return to the constitution is ripe.

1. What makes you believe the states are any less likely to become oppressive or corrupted than the FEDS? Certainly history of corruption on the state level doesn't that theory

2. Your theory also presumes we need to "return to the constitution:.

Yet consitutional scholars really don't believe we left it to begin with.

ARe you suggesting that you are a superior consitutional scholar to every SCOTUS we have ever had?

 

[candycorn]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chqi8m4CEEY]YouTube - &#x202a;V for Vendetta Speech&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

Following me around huh?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

1860's

That's when the federal government began its takeover of state variety. The job got finished in the 1960's when states further proved that they could not be trusted to deal fairly with their populations, as they took a stab at 'separate but equal'.

With the proliferation of communication tools based on the internet, I believe the states can now be trusted, and a return to the constitution is ripe.

1. What makes you believe the states are any less likely to become oppressive or corrupted than the FEDS? Certainly history of corruption on the state level doesn't that theory

2. Your theory also presumes we need to "return to the constitution:.

Yet consitutional scholars really don't believe we left it to begin with.

ARe you suggesting that you are a superior consitutional scholar to every SCOTUS we have ever had?

State governments can be just as corrupt but at least the people of a state can deal with their own scoundrels and not impose them on states that are working pretty well. And I am guessing people will put more pressure on their state governments to clean up their acts if they are looking to the state government to enforce the social contract instead of a central federal government to do everything.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Constitution as the Founders gave us worked beautifully for the first hundred years or so. The great experiment was more successful than even they imagined and produced the most free, most innovative, most creative, most productive, and most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

But beginning on a very small scale in the Teddy Roosevelt administration, that small snowball has been rolling and picking up size and speed aided and abetted by people and courts wanting to return to European models that the Founders sought to escape. Our freedoms have been whittled away bit by bit and the federal government keeps getting bigger and more intrusive and more authoritarian to bring us to the brink of bankruptcy and the economic and social mess we are currently in.

In my opinion some of the principles incuded in the poll, if implemented, would largely correct and begin reversing that and return us closer to the nation the Founders envisioned.

1860's

That's when the federal government began its takeover of state variety. The job got finished in the 1960's when states further proved that they could not be trusted to deal fairly with their populations, as they took a stab at 'separate but equal'.

With the proliferation of communication tools based on the internet, I believe the states can now be trusted, and a return to the constitution is ripe.

1. What makes you believe the states are any less likely to become oppressive or corrupted than the FEDS? Certainly history of corruption on the state level doesn't that theory

2. Your theory also presumes we need to "return to the constitution:.

Yet consitutional scholars really don't believe we left it to begin with.

ARe you suggesting that you are a superior consitutional scholar to every SCOTUS we have ever had?

1. The composition of the bureaucracies and the internet. The People who the bureaucracies are composed of... right up to the politicians who drive them, are a truly diverse group. If the state bureaucracies ever tried to discriminate like majority populations within the states got away with leading up to the 1960's, the story would not go untold.

I also like the idea of having less micro-management direction coming all the long ass ******* way from DC and more direction and say-so about how the resources that surround me are harvested coming from a politician I'm likely to shake the hand of.

2. My humble opinion is that the bullshit federal tax code is unconstitutional and the politicians who continue to justify it are committing treason.

I'm suggesting that I'm not just an average Joe when it comes to being an opinionated ******.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

Do you have any idea how much freedom we gain by NOT having to grow our own food?

How many of us would GLADLY pay a few thousand a year for inspectors to keep food producers honestly meeting minimum standards, giving us enough free time to BUY food with the proceeds of a job done in an air-conditioned office?



The rest of your post seems to be a good argument for banding together as a community and preserving things like the Grand Canyon, and the economic sense of pooling community resources to build transportation infrastructure that's free for anyone to use.

 

[candycorn]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

Do you have any idea how much freedom we gain by NOT having to grow our own food?

How many of us would GLADLY pay a few thousand a year for inspectors to keep food producers honestly meeting minimum standards, giving us enough free time to BUY food with the proceeds of a job done in an air-conditioned office?



The rest of your post seems to be a good argument for banding together as a community and preserving things like the Grand Canyon, and the economic sense of pooling community resources to build transportation infrastructure that's free for anyone to use.

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying or trying to say (whichever is the case)....

I want the federal government to have 3X the meat, fish, poultry, vegetable inspectors they have now.

I want the federal government to manage the national parks.

The poster who came up with the original OP seems to want to turn back the clock to the 1780's where the government basically protected the borders and little else. I disagree with the spirit of the thread insofar as thats not "fixing" anything but basically reverting to a time when all we had to worry about was Indians and Red Coats.

As you may or may not know, I'm all for preserving the Constitution but updating it to meet the needs of 2011 and beyond. No convenience store in the world would operate on a business model that is 224 years old; yet our country does basically; there is no guarantee of privacy, no rules about how much our government can spend and what it can spend it on other than the variable winds of politics, no mention of how much you can be taxed, no mention of what is and isn't taxable income...etc...

 

[AVG-JOE]

What is an entitlement?

Are US Food inspectors an entitlement? Nobody is forcing you to buy food--you could grow your own. So in one sense of the word, they are an entitlement and certainly were not mentioned in the Constitution.

What about National Parks? Do you want to close the Grand Canyon...permanently? Or sell it to Texaco and let them do what they want?

Again, what about the Interstates? I know the citizens of the US are paying for new Interstates being put into Louisiana, Texas and some other states. Will those go bye bye in this silly rush to get back to the exact text of a document written 224 years ago?

Do you have any idea how much freedom we gain by NOT having to grow our own food?

How many of us would GLADLY pay a few thousand a year for inspectors to keep food producers honestly meeting minimum standards, giving us enough free time to BUY food with the proceeds of a job done in an air-conditioned office?



The rest of your post seems to be a good argument for banding together as a community and preserving things like the Grand Canyon, and the economic sense of pooling community resources to build transportation infrastructure that's free for anyone to use.

I'm not sure if you know what I'm saying or trying to say (whichever is the case)....

I want the federal government to have 3X the meat, fish, poultry, vegetable inspectors they have now.

I want the federal government to manage the national parks.

The poster who came up with the original OP seems to want to turn back the clock to the 1780's where the government basically protected the borders and little else. I disagree with the spirit of the thread insofar as thats not "fixing" anything but basically reverting to a time when all we had to worry about was Indians and Red Coats.

As you may or may not know, I'm all for preserving the Constitution but updating it to meet the needs of 2011 and beyond. No convenience store in the world would operate on a business model that is 224 years old; yet our country does basically; there is no guarantee of privacy, no rules about how much our government can spend and what it can spend it on other than the variable winds of politics, no mention of how much you can be taxed, no mention of what is and isn't taxable income...etc...

The application of the constitution was profoundly altered as a result of the prosecution of The American Civil War. The relationship between the states and the federal government became very different. No longer sovereign states united, we became The United States. I simply think the time is ripe to look towards a political relationship that returns some of the power righteously taken from them since 1860 back to the states.

It's either that or we keep going the way we're going and start a pool betting on which state will dare a president to order troops to fire on Americans by seceding first.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Europeans sure seem to be positioning themselves for a break up. Perhaps smaller is better when it comes to the political responsibilities of any given 'leader'.... either small geography or small scope of influence.

Jus' thinkin' out loud here...