The Difference Between Our Founding Fathers and Today's "Revolutionaries"

[nodoginnafight]

"The revolution is only necessary in a representative democracy when a minority wants to impose their will on the majority because they are so convinced they know better."

Disagree. It may also become necessary if a majority (especially a slight majority) imposes intolerable rule on the minority because they are so convinced they know better. Ask a German Jew. An alternative is succession which is intended to avoid mortal conflict with former friends.

Our system provides an avenue to address those grievances without resorting to insurrection. Succession isn't it. Succession is only achieved through mortal combat.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

I admit to not particularly caring about how formidable the U.S. has been in wars, as I can't really think of any war that the U.S. realistically should have been involved in. The Revolutionary War perhaps, but after that it's all downhill. I need more clarification of the portion I bolded, however, before I can really respond to it in detail. Not sure what you mean exactly. As for trade, I see no reason why several American confederacies couldn't maintain free trade with each other. Whether they would or not being another matter. The fact is they could.

Your last point is something I've been giving thought to lately. How long is a system of governance really meant to last? The longer it goes the more corrupt and less responsive it becomes, as far as I can tell. A right to peaceful secession would be one way of combating that problem. Now I don't deny that there likely would be bloodshed, but I'm merely arguing that there should not be.

Some good points. My point that you ask for clarification is that I think those who remain in the union are weakened by succession. And they are strengthen by being a part of a bigger, stronger union.

Weakened how? Militarily? Remember that some of the greatest military powers have come from relatively small countries.

 

[martybegan]

Those rights were secured by a vote. And they can be amended by vote. And if a majority of people believe that our elected officials are in violation of the law, they can vote them out of office.

Secured by a 2/3 vote, followed by a 3/4 state level vote, which is what SHOULD be required to get rid of them.

I shouldnt have to worry about getting rid of an elected offical who violates my rights, even if a majority supports the position, because it is a constituitonal right, and is above and beyond the will of the majority.

No, elected officials are retained or are cast out of office by a simple majority (and in some cases it only takes a plurality).

And if your Constitutional rights have been violated you have an avenue of peaceful redress of that grievance as well.

What I'm saying is that my rights should be above and beyond the rights of the simple majority and elected officials unless they meet the burden of the supermajority required by the consitution.

When they work in hand with the courts to circumevent the constitution then how is peaceful redress going to stop it? Especially if the majority (not a supermajority) so wills it?

My 2nd amendment rights are being shit on in NY State, with the willful glee of the people in NYC. People upstate are pissed off, yet they lack the numbers to take care of it via the legislature due to the size of the NYC area.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I admit to not particularly caring about how formidable the U.S. has been in wars, as I can't really think of any war that the U.S. realistically should have been involved in. The Revolutionary War perhaps, but after that it's all downhill. I need more clarification of the portion I bolded, however, before I can really respond to it in detail. Not sure what you mean exactly. As for trade, I see no reason why several American confederacies couldn't maintain free trade with each other. Whether they would or not being another matter. The fact is they could.

Your last point is something I've been giving thought to lately. How long is a system of governance really meant to last? The longer it goes the more corrupt and less responsive it becomes, as far as I can tell. A right to peaceful secession would be one way of combating that problem. Now I don't deny that there likely would be bloodshed, but I'm merely arguing that there should not be.

Some good points. My point that you ask for clarification is that I think those who remain in the union are weakened by succession. And they are strengthen by being a part of a bigger, stronger union.

Weakened how? Militarily? Remember that some of the greatest military powers have come from relatively small countries.

Weakened militarily, economically ... in almost every imaginable way. Russia isn't anywhere near the superpower they once were. Why is that?

The UK isn't the superpower they were in the 18th and 19th century? Same reason.

Disregarding the rights and wrongs of it, which we may or may not agree on - the bottom line is that once India, Hong Kong, etc won their independence from Britian - Britian was diminished. Same with Russia once the Soviet Block started breaking up.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Secured by a 2/3 vote, followed by a 3/4 state level vote, which is what SHOULD be required to get rid of them.

I shouldnt have to worry about getting rid of an elected offical who violates my rights, even if a majority supports the position, because it is a constituitonal right, and is above and beyond the will of the majority.

No, elected officials are retained or are cast out of office by a simple majority (and in some cases it only takes a plurality).

And if your Constitutional rights have been violated you have an avenue of peaceful redress of that grievance as well.

What I'm saying is that my rights should be above and beyond the rights of the simple majority and elected officials unless they meet the burden of the supermajority required by the consitution.

When they work in hand with the courts to circumevent the constitution then how is peaceful redress going to stop it? Especially if the majority (not a supermajority) so wills it?

My 2nd amendment rights are being shit on in NY State, with the willful glee of the people in NYC. People upstate are pissed off, yet they lack the numbers to take care of it via the legislature due to the size of the NYC area.

I think there are quite a few people who disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. So you are saying that SCOTUS and a majority of the people disagree with you. That's not such a novel position for people to find themselves in. SCOTUS and a majority once believed that separate could be equal. No super-majority over-turned that idea.

So yeah, there may come a point when most people just disagree with you, your positions, and your interpretations of the Constitution. So what do you do? You can either move, win a lot of people over to your point of view, win a few justices over to your point of view, start an insurrection ... (I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list)

But whatever course you choose, there will be hurdles. You have to weigh your options and make up your own mind about what is right.

Just don't expect those who disagree with you to help you remove those hurdles just because "it's the right thing to do." They won't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Some good points. My point that you ask for clarification is that I think those who remain in the union are weakened by succession. And they are strengthen by being a part of a bigger, stronger union.

Weakened how? Militarily? Remember that some of the greatest military powers have come from relatively small countries.

Weakened militarily, economically ... in almost every imaginable way. Russia isn't anywhere near the superpower they once were. Why is that?

The UK isn't the superpower they were in the 18th and 19th century? Same reason.

Disregarding the rights and wrongs of it, which we may or may not agree on - the bottom line is that once India, Hong Kong, etc won their independence from Britian - Britian was diminished. Same with Russia once the Soviet Block started breaking up.

I think you've got the causation reversed. The British Empire and the Soviet Union weakened from within, and then lost their colonial holdings. Remember, however, that they had to be superpowers to begin with to gain those colonies in the first place.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Weakened how? Militarily? Remember that some of the greatest military powers have come from relatively small countries.

Weakened militarily, economically ... in almost every imaginable way. Russia isn't anywhere near the superpower they once were. Why is that?

The UK isn't the superpower they were in the 18th and 19th century? Same reason.

Disregarding the rights and wrongs of it, which we may or may not agree on - the bottom line is that once India, Hong Kong, etc won their independence from Britian - Britian was diminished. Same with Russia once the Soviet Block started breaking up.

I think you've got the causation reversed. The British Empire and the Soviet Union weakened from within, and then lost their colonial holdings. Remember, however, that they had to be superpowers to begin with to gain those colonies in the first place.

Those colonies are what helped to promote them into superpower status. I believe you are the one who has the cart in front of the horse. But I'll agree to disagree.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Difference Between Our Founding Fathers and Today's "Revolutionaries"

One difference today is that there is increasing animosity between rural and urban populations.
The urban majority would be wise to remember where their food and water comes from.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Our founding fathers would laugh at what today's "revolutionaries" consider grievances

I believe you are correct.
I think they would also admire how American resembles their vision a lot more today than it did during their lifetimes.

Just MHO.

Yes, they could only dream of free cellphones, 1/6 of Americans on the government dole, 30,000,000+ unemployed, $16,000,000,000,000 debt, etc.

Yep... twas but a pipedream...

 

[martybegan]

No, elected officials are retained or are cast out of office by a simple majority (and in some cases it only takes a plurality).

And if your Constitutional rights have been violated you have an avenue of peaceful redress of that grievance as well.

What I'm saying is that my rights should be above and beyond the rights of the simple majority and elected officials unless they meet the burden of the supermajority required by the consitution.

When they work in hand with the courts to circumevent the constitution then how is peaceful redress going to stop it? Especially if the majority (not a supermajority) so wills it?

My 2nd amendment rights are being shit on in NY State, with the willful glee of the people in NYC. People upstate are pissed off, yet they lack the numbers to take care of it via the legislature due to the size of the NYC area.

I think there are quite a few people who disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. So you are saying that SCOTUS and a majority of the people disagree with you. That's not such a novel position for people to find themselves in. SCOTUS and a majority once believed that separate could be equal. No super-majority over-turned that idea.

So yeah, there may come a point when most people just disagree with you, your positions, and your interpretations of the Constitution. So what do you do? You can either move, win a lot of people over to your point of view, win a few justices over to your point of view, start an insurrection ... (I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list)

But whatever course you choose, there will be hurdles. You have to weigh your options and make up your own mind about what is right.

Just don't expect those who disagree with you to help you remove those hurdles just because "it's the right thing to do." They won't.

Seperate but equal was a perversion of the Reconstruction amendments, as is far more an example of what happens when courts decide to make law on thier own than any example of the majority desrving its will on others. Those amendments WERE passed with supermajorities, and yet were ignored because the population affected was rendered impotent by the very laws that oppressed them.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Difference Between Our Founding Fathers and Today's "Revolutionaries"

One difference today is that there is increasing animosity between rural and urban populations.
The urban majority would be wise to remember where their food and water comes from.

That's not very different than the rifts that developed in Colonial America. One of the main reasons the supermajorities were required for some actions and a big reason for the electoral college was because rural Colonial Americans were just as worried about those in the more urban areas becoming a majority and trampeling on them.

The differences between urban and rural America have been her since the beginning. But I think that's a very good point in that I think it is STILL the basis for most of the division in our country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every person on this board who is a citizen has a right to vote.

Elections have consequences

Because you lose does not mean that you aare not being treated fairly.

 

[FA_Q2]

Switzerland (and some others) could be good examples of how it may work well. The Balkans are another example (IMHO) of how this is fraught with danger. I don't see how one comparison is any more compelling than the other.

I see both examples as distinct possibilities.

But no matter how much we debate the possibilities in the abstract, it doesn't change the reality. If a state or a region of the U.S. wants independence, they are going to have to fight for it. And in that fight they are going to have to go "all in" and risk it all. That's just the reality.

And the parent governing body will not be held under any obligation to help.

A previous poster hit upon a key element (imho) in that I just don't believe that there are very many people who believe that they have it so bad in the United States of America in 2013 that they will risk everything to bring about the changes they would like to see. Differences aside, we do live in a society that is probably the best mix of power, prosperity, and tolerance that this planet has ever seen. And I also believe that our system includes an adaptability to the will of the people that make insurrection unecessary.

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

Again, that is the whole point. There will be bloodshed at that point because the federal government has decided that breaking away is not acceptable and they are willing to kill for it. IF we were to acknowledge that states did, indeed, have that right then there would be no bloodshed. There would be economic or other impacts as adjustments are made and likely the states would rejoin anyway at a later date when they realize the loss of many of the benefits BUT the reality is that as soon as you have dictated to the people that they may NOT dissolve the government that is supposed to be theirs then you have essentially required there to be blood when the government gets to corrupt.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Weakened militarily, economically ... in almost every imaginable way. Russia isn't anywhere near the superpower they once were. Why is that?

The UK isn't the superpower they were in the 18th and 19th century? Same reason.

Disregarding the rights and wrongs of it, which we may or may not agree on - the bottom line is that once India, Hong Kong, etc won their independence from Britian - Britian was diminished. Same with Russia once the Soviet Block started breaking up.

I think you've got the causation reversed. The British Empire and the Soviet Union weakened from within, and then lost their colonial holdings. Remember, however, that they had to be superpowers to begin with to gain those colonies in the first place.

Those colonies are what helped to promote them into superpower status. I believe you are the one who has the cart in front of the horse. But I'll agree to disagree.

How did they get the colonies if they weren't already superpowers?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think you've got the causation reversed. The British Empire and the Soviet Union weakened from within, and then lost their colonial holdings. Remember, however, that they had to be superpowers to begin with to gain those colonies in the first place.

Those colonies are what helped to promote them into superpower status. I believe you are the one who has the cart in front of the horse. But I'll agree to disagree.

How did they get the colonies if they weren't already superpowers?

You don't have to be a superpower to waltz in with superior technology and subjugate a disorganized society.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

Again, that is the whole point. There will be bloodshed at that point because the federal government has decided that breaking away is not acceptable and they are willing to kill for it. IF we were to acknowledge that states did, indeed, have that right then there would be no bloodshed. There would be economic or other impacts as adjustments are made and likely the states would rejoin anyway at a later date when they realize the loss of many of the benefits BUT the reality is that as soon as you have dictated to the people that they may NOT dissolve the government that is supposed to be theirs then you have essentially required there to be blood when the government gets to corrupt.

I just don't believe that the United States of America could have achieved what we have by opening the door for states bail out on the union like that.

For example - you are never going to get 100% of the people in a given state to agree to leave the union. So what happens to that 1 to 49% of the people within that state who do not want to leave? Tough crap? Move out?

So what's the difference in applying that same - tough luck kiddo - approach on a national level?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Those colonies are what helped to promote them into superpower status. I believe you are the one who has the cart in front of the horse. But I'll agree to disagree.

How did they get the colonies if they weren't already superpowers?

You don't have to be a superpower to waltz in with superior technology and subjugate a disorganized society.

You do if you want to hold on to your colonies from other superpowers.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How did they get the colonies if they weren't already superpowers?

You don't have to be a superpower to waltz in with superior technology and subjugate a disorganized society.

You do if you want to hold on to your colonies from other superpowers.

And pillaging wealth from disorganized societies gives you the means to develope into a superpower.

Honestly, I think the two probably went hand-in-hand. The more you loot from "those savages" in the new world, the more wealthy and powerful you became. Do it long enough and, boom - you're a "superpower."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You don't have to be a superpower to waltz in with superior technology and subjugate a disorganized society.

You do if you want to hold on to your colonies from other superpowers.

And pillaging wealth from disorganized societies gives you the means to develope into a superpower.

Honestly, I think the two probably went hand-in-hand. The more you loot from "those savages" in the new world, the more wealthy and powerful you became. Do it long enough and, boom - you're a "superpower."

Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree after all.

 

[FA_Q2]

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

Again, that is the whole point. There will be bloodshed at that point because the federal government has decided that breaking away is not acceptable and they are willing to kill for it. IF we were to acknowledge that states did, indeed, have that right then there would be no bloodshed. There would be economic or other impacts as adjustments are made and likely the states would rejoin anyway at a later date when they realize the loss of many of the benefits BUT the reality is that as soon as you have dictated to the people that they may NOT dissolve the government that is supposed to be theirs then you have essentially required there to be blood when the government gets to corrupt.

I just don't believe that the United States of America could have achieved what we have by opening the door for states bail out on the union like that.

For example - you are never going to get 100% of the people in a given state to agree to leave the union. So what happens to that 1 to 49% of the people within that state who do not want to leave? Tough crap? Move out?

So what's the difference in applying that same - tough luck kiddo - approach on a national level?

The difference is that a state would determine the requirements for a succession and I would never live in a place that had that chance unless the bar was set at the levels that amending the constitution requires.

Essentially, you are choosing what to accept and not accept from the get go. I would also note that another poster already pointed out that this event has occurred ONCE in all the history of this nation. I have strong doubts that we would have diminished any of our accomplishments, made ever stronger by the fact that the deadliest and most destructive war by a massive margin the US has ever fought would not have occurred.