In the absence of the U.S. Constitution, would you rather live in the most centralized government possible (world union, with Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or the most decentralized possible (Articles of Confederation)?
Articles of Confederation or a one world government?
- Thread starter Anarchist420
- Start date
Tristicus
Diamond Member
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Could you please not try to derail my thread? If anyone's trolling, it's you.
NO IT WASN'T A F***ING TROLL POLL. I'M NOT THE TYPE THAT LIKES TO GET A RISE OUT OF PEOPLE. GOD DAMN, I GUESS I'M JUST STUPID.
Can you answer me why you think I should be banned? I'm not breaking any rules and I don't have any permanent infractions, nonetheless 3 infractions.
Tristicus
Diamond Member
Because you are a horrible troll who posts horrible threads on horrible subjects.
Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 27,473
- 11,794
- 136
What's your obsession with the Articles of Confederation? Trying to recreate some magical time that never really existed?
Edit:
Missed this before:
Edit:
Missed this before:
I'm glad we're finally making some progress. You'll need sessions until I pay off my boat. Cash, Credit, or Debit?
Last edited:
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
idk, would you rather have one world government under Hitler or the half-broken world as we know it now?
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
I voted for the Federation, I am all about improving relations asap with the green/blue skinned nubiles of nearby star systems.
I refuse to indulge the mental masturbations of someone who thinks only in polar extremes.
- wolf
- wolf
I'm just not a moderate.
I knew that most people would've preferred the Constitution since it's not as extreme as either choice. What I was asking was if people would prefer extreme Antifederalism or extreme centralization.
You're the one trolling in my thread and talking shit. Like I said, this was meant to be a serious thread, and you're talking mad shit in my thread, so you're the troll, not me.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 65,615
- 13,999
- 146
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Perhaps your poll should reflect that then. A choice between two extremes ONLY is no choice at all. People see that type of choice as a possible troll position. You seem to at least acknowledge that most would choose a more moderate position. Why not offer those choices to reflect people leaning in a centralized gov't philosophy than currently exists vs. a more decentralized gov't than currently exists with the constitution. Maybe have the status quo as a choice too? Leaving more room for that nuance will encourage a healthier debate than A vs. B.
Sounds good, let's do it!
It's certainly better than the OP's paradise of California invading its neighbors to loot their resources, and the flyover states descending further into toothless and illiterate savagery.
Fallout 1-3 were fun to play, but I doubt many people would choose that world over the Federation.
Tristicus
Diamond Member
I was asking what people thought was the lesser of the two evils (the Articles of Confederation being an evil in everyone's mind except mind.)
I hope that clears things up.
Here's a good article on the Articles of Confederation which I really suggest reading: http://mises.org/daily/1296.
Basically, the Constitution came into being because of special interests, like the mercantalists and banksters who hoped to gain from it.
The problems during the 1780s were already beginning to correct themselves, such as the trade wars between the states for obvious reasons as well as the depression.
Other things, such as a non-uniform currency were not really a problem and a uniform currency was only pushed for because of the banksters and financiers who hoped to gain from it. The linked article explains why competing currencies are a good thing. Besides, logic says that if a one world currency sucks (which it does), then the more currencies the better.
As for compulsory taxation, the article explains why that's a bad thing just like I did earlier in another thread. 1/3 of the Federal budget before Jefferson was to pay tax collectors and revenue inspectors. Another large fraction was for government salaries, which is what the states feared under the Articles of Confederation when the Congress of the Confederation tried to pass a 5% tariff, which the Congress said was only to pay off the debts, but the states correctly predicted that a central tax would be to pay for a civil service bureaucracy.
Another large percentage of the budget was a standing army. We didn't need a standing army and never did. The state militias were enough to supress an invasion, and Massachusetts raised enough money to get the Continental Army to arrest Shay's Rebellion, even though the Shaysites had every right to rebel.
No one can be a true libertarian and support the Constitution over the AoC.
Basically, the Constitution came into being because of special interests, like the mercantalists and banksters who hoped to gain from it.
The problems during the 1780s were already beginning to correct themselves, such as the trade wars between the states for obvious reasons as well as the depression.
Other things, such as a non-uniform currency were not really a problem and a uniform currency was only pushed for because of the banksters and financiers who hoped to gain from it. The linked article explains why competing currencies are a good thing. Besides, logic says that if a one world currency sucks (which it does), then the more currencies the better.
As for compulsory taxation, the article explains why that's a bad thing just like I did earlier in another thread. 1/3 of the Federal budget before Jefferson was to pay tax collectors and revenue inspectors. Another large fraction was for government salaries, which is what the states feared under the Articles of Confederation when the Congress of the Confederation tried to pass a 5% tariff, which the Congress said was only to pay off the debts, but the states correctly predicted that a central tax would be to pay for a civil service bureaucracy.
Another large percentage of the budget was a standing army. We didn't need a standing army and never did. The state militias were enough to supress an invasion, and Massachusetts raised enough money to get the Continental Army to arrest Shay's Rebellion, even though the Shaysites had every right to rebel.
No one can be a true libertarian and support the Constitution over the AoC.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter