Who Would Have Thought? Shocker!

[Toro]

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx". - Ronald Reagan

That is a great quote.

I'm keeping it.

 

[musicman]

"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx". - Ronald Reagan

That is a great quote.

I'm keeping it.

It's bad to the bone, ain't it? I like your quote from Mr. Goldwater, as well. Common sense conservatism has a way of cutting through the nonsense with deadly efficiency, I think. Another favorite of mine - also from Barry Goldwater:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

 

[liberalogic]

I, on the other hand, consider George Orwell a prophet. Tyranny is the natural aspiration of man; his nature demands it. Government kept on a short, jealously guarded leash is our only slim hope, and - even then - we doze at our peril.

I think there's a big difference between the Stalin-Hitler era of which Orwell wrote and American democracy. I see how you just don't trust government in general, but I really don't see how more consolidation of federal power would lead to totalitarianism in the US. That's why we have checks and balances on the federal level.

 

[musicman]

I think there's a big difference between the Stalin-Hitler era of which Orwell wrote and American democracy.

Not in the sense that matters most. Both involve flawed, imperfect human beings. Governments - being the creations of men - will, left unchecked, strive - ALWAYS - toward tyranny. We can't help it; it's the way we're wired.

I see how you just don't trust government in general, but I really don't see how more consolidation of federal power would lead to totalitarianism in the US. That's why we have checks and balances on the federal level.

That's like having the foxes police one another as they surround the hen house. No - my favorite set of checks and balances is the devolving path of power away from central government and toward the people, as plainly set forth in the Tenth Amendment. That is self-government. THAT, I trust.

 

[José]

Musicman

I will try to dissect now the historical origins of the federation vs. confederation debate.

The contributions of posters far more knowlegeable on US history than I (what includes just about the whole board LOL) will be GREATLY appreciated.

Liberal, your excellent points will be addressed later.
__________________________________________________________

Musicman

The main problem with the concept of confederation/federation is that there’s no clear division between them.

A confederation, in the strict sense, is an association between soveireign state members that agree to cooperate on some issues and can exercise their right to leave the confederation at any time.

Virginia, Massachussets were, somewhat contradictorily, quasi soveireign states that voluntarily agreed to enter a confederation of states and part of the nascent american national identity at the same time.

The then recently created United States was at the same time the political confederation to which those quasi sovereign states belonged but also a nation state in the making.

As liberalogic rightly pointed out, the founders of the US thought about themselves, first as Virginians, their primary identification was with their states.

But the reason that led them to form the confederation was a sense of shared history as british colonies that existed among the states and also the shared values upon which the confederation was founded: the values of a democratic state.

In other words, the confederation was the result of a nascent american national identity.

And the historical relationship between these two United States (the nation state and the political confederation) was always tumultuous, to say the least.

The member states could have almost unlimited political autonomy and could even freely enter or leave the United States regarded simply as a confederation of sovereign states.

But it would be much more difficult for the american states to maintain the same level of political autonomy from the federal union and exercise their right to leave the US regarded as a new nation state formed by them.

The US was a confederation of soveireign states and a new (and potentially indivisible) nation state at the same time.

This is the basic contradiction that marks the birth of the US, led to the American Civil War and still fuels the federation vs. confederation debate today.

 

[José]

Originally posted by liberalogic
What I meant was that the founding fathers came from a confederacy and were biased because of it. If you were from Virginia and you had lived your life there before the inception of the US, you were first and foremost a Virginian. Today, we consider ourselves Americans first and foremost.

Originally posted by liberalogic
Personally, I think the states should have rights to cater to their individual needs. But there needs to be MORE CONFORMITY ON MAJOR ISSUES-- like is it really fair that I can kill someone in one state and get life, then I can do the same in another state and be executed?

You nailed it, liberalogic : )

During the 19th and 20th centuries the american national identity slowly superceded the identification with the state that was so strong when the country was founded.

The United States today is primarily a nation state and secondarily a group of states that are united under a confederation.

And the historical change in the way the American people perceive themselves was accompanied by the progressive “federalization” of the US through a series of constitutional changes or simply a less strict interpretation of the constitutional text and this is what displeases musicman so much.

Many people, and I’m one of them, don’t even call the US a true confederation anymore, just a federalist state that continues to grant some extra rights to its constituents states.

In my view, as a consolidated nation state, the US cannot afford to be a strict, tight confederation anymore.

The key words in your post are “more conformity on major issues”. Decentralization of power is by and large a positive thing but not on “major issues”.

I call these “major issues” the central values of a democratic state like periodic elections with universal suffrage, equality before the law, secularism, separation of powers etc and even some other issues of extreme importance like the one you cited, the death penalty…

There must be absolute conformity between the federal and the state level on these major issues.

I would even go a step further and say that the central values of a democratic state should not be open to change not even at the federal level to prevent charismatic demagogues like Hitler and Chavez to achieve power by democratic means and then change the constitution to perpetuate themselves in power.

Democracy cannot provide a legal venue that may lead to its own destruction, neither at the state nor federal level.

 

[musicman]

And the historical change in the way the American people perceive themselves was accompanied by the progressive “federalization” of the US through a series of constitutional changes or simply a less strict interpretation of the constitutional text and this is what displeases musicman so much.

"A less strict interpretation of the constitutional text" is the path to tyranny; it should displease any American who values the self-determination he enjoys - UNIQUE in this world. Abandon this, and what do we get? I'll let YOU answer that, Jose':

Many people, and I’m one of them, don’t even call the US a true confederation anymore, just a federalist state that continues to grant some extra rights to its constituents states.

The American Ideal is that certain, inalienable rights are OURS - not granted us by the state, but given us of God. The state doesn't GRANT us jack squat - it SERVES us.

In my view, as a consolidated nation state, the US cannot afford to be a loose confederation anymore.

Actually, I think we've done fairly well for ourselves.

The key words in your post are “more conformity on major issues”. Decentralization of power is by and large a positive thing but not on “major issues”.

I call these “major issues” the central values of a democratic state like periodic elections with universal suffrage, equality before the law, secularism, separation of powers etc and even some other issues of extreme importance like the one you cited, the death penalty…

Enforced secularism and a national policy on the death penalty would insert central government into matters of behavior where it is expressly forbidden, by our Constitution, to go. You are advocating tyranny.

There must be absolute conformity between the federal and the state level on these major issues.

Can you say that - passionately and harshly - in German? It'd sound better.

I would even go a step further and say that the central values of a democratic state should not be open to change not even at the federal level to prevent charismatic demagogues like Hitler and Chavez to achieve power by democratic means and then change the constitution to perpetuate themselves in power.

That would be a little more difficult to accomplish in a representative republic.

Democracy cannot provide a legal venue that may lead to its own destruction, neither at the state nor federal level.

That would be a little more difficult to accomplish in a representative republic.

 

[musicman]

Jose':

You are an intelligent person, and I enjoy exchanging ideas with you. But, I find speaking to ladies in gutter talk very distasteful. Moreover, Kathianne is a friend of mine. Disagreements are going to take place on a message board; that's part of the fun of it all! But, I'd count it as a great personal favor if you''d be a little more circumspect in your dealings with the ladies of USMB.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Kathianne,

Moved to the Taunting Area by GunnyL!!!

: )

How about you grow up? Totally uncalled for and offensive. You want to drop to that level, there is a forum JUST for you.