Democrats pushing for another Amendment to limit to confederalism.

[Anarchist420]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...crats-seek-amendments-to-restrict-free-speech

It pisses me off that they have to use government rather than allow the Laws of Nature (Brown Amendment [gets rid of the MIC], Bricker Amendment [gets rid of NAFTA], Abolition of IP Amendment [takes away above market profits], State-rate tax[lets the people of each state decided how they should be taxed], and an Amendment that bans the Federal government from creating credit [reduces wall street] and money [doesn't rob old people of their savings] and forces it to exclusively take silver or gold) to take their rightful course.

If the Democrats really didn't want corporations to make above market profits, then they would endorse confederalism (equality before the law). This is just evidence that they want more power.

 

[irishScott]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RUeMCZL3Q

 

[cybrsage]

Confederalism was never about equity before the law. Slavery was alive and well in the failed attempt at forming a confederation.

 

[woolfe9999]

Unfortunately these amendments have no chance of passing because they hurt entrenched special interests too much. Given that there is no worry that corruption will ever be abated in our political system, I frankly don't see what the OP is complaining about.

 

[LunarRay]

OP,
I get the feeling that you are Isocratic... It seems you try to pick the 'best' aspects of the current liberal, socialistic and anarchistic thought while also somehow finding current conservative thought absent... Another word for Equality is Isocracy...

I think that this 'picking' mentioned above cannot be woven into an acceptable mode of governance in the US. There will always be acceptance of the less optimum over the most optimum aspects and especially in the application of Economic implementation... Economics is a Social Science after all and we are pretty much quite a bit different from each other even in our own extreme clannish behavior. And as I said elsewhere, it is our view to economics that drives the form of governance we find acceptable.

Unanimous decisions are best found in a monastery.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unanimous decisions are best found in a monastery.

Even there, it's not unanimous decision making but rather unanimous consent...

 

[CallMeJoe]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7RUeMCZL3Q

I'll see you and raise you a Johnny Rotten

 

[LunarRay]

Even there, it's not unanimous decision making but rather unanimous consent...

In the sense that the decision to consent was unanimous. But, that was my point... we all have the ability to do or not do something and it is in that right we seem to compromise and do so mainly cuz we're very far apart on most anything... The majority (what ever that might be) must consider what ever factor puts them there... Self preservation of power is a strong motivator...()

 

[Anarchist420]

Confederalism was never about equity before the law. Slavery was alive and well in the failed attempt at forming a confederation.

Slavery couldn't have lasted under the Articles of Confederation because there was no central government to protect it. The Articles of Confederation didn't recognize slavery, so everyone was equal before the Confederal Union because it only recognized free and independent States and their duty to protect and provide for each other when necessary. It didn't place many limitations on individuals (although it did bind and limit to a degree the Original 13 States, it set rules for captures, and a few other things) like the Federal Constitution did.

However, with the Federal Constitution the union favored (and still favors) certain people were favored over others (industrialists over the yeoman farmer, centralists over decentralists, white people over indians, slaveowners over slaves, etc.), especially before the 13th Amendment.

 

[Anarchist420]

OP,
I get the feeling that you are Isocratic... It seems you try to pick the 'best' aspects of the current liberal, socialistic and anarchistic thought while also somehow finding current conservative thought absent... Another word for Equality is Isocracy...

I think that this 'picking' mentioned above cannot be woven into an acceptable mode of governance in the US. There will always be acceptance of the less optimum over the most optimum aspects and especially in the application of Economic implementation... Economics is a Social Science after all and we are pretty much quite a bit different from each other even in our own extreme clannish behavior. And as I said elsewhere, it is our view to economics that drives the form of governance we find acceptable.

Unanimous decisions are best found in a monastery.

I'm no egalitarian One could say that I'm an agorist (which I have tendencies of, but I'm an Anarcho-Antifederalist).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Slavery couldn't have lasted under the Articles of Confederation because there was no central government to protect it. The Articles of Confederation didn't recognize slavery, so everyone was equal before the Confederal Union because it only recognized free and independent States and their duty to protect and provide for each other when necessary. It didn't place many limitations on individuals (although it did bind and limit to a degree the Original 13 States, it set rules for captures, and a few other things) like the Federal Constitution did.

However, with the Federal Constitution the union favored (and still favors) certain people were favored over others (industrialists over the yeoman farmer, centralists over decentralists, white people over indians, slaveowners over slaves, etc.), especially before the 13th Amendment.

Slavery is the norm, not some strange system that needed protecting.

Allow enough deconstruction of what we have now (whether by destroying government, economy, or the rule of law), and overt slavery will eventually return.

 

[Siddhartha]

Unfortunately these amendments have no chance of passing because they hurt entrenched special interests too much. Given that there is no worry that corruption will ever be abated in our political system, I frankly don't see what the OP is complaining about.

Everybody in this country is an "entrenched special interests" of one kind or an other. It only becomes an issue when someone's "entrenched interest" disagrees with yours.

 

[cybrsage]

Slavery couldn't have lasted under the Articles of Confederation because there was no central government to protect it.

You have an odd view of what a confederation is. Instead of one central government to protect, or remove, it, there were 13 governments that each could protect or remove it.

You really do not know what a confederation is.

 

[xj0hnx]

I'll see you and raise you a Johnny Rotten

At least use a video with Sid in it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=na7A3-UCCYE

 

[Anarchist420]

You have an odd view of what a confederation is. Instead of one central government to protect, or remove, it, there were 13 governments that each could protect or remove it.

You really do not know what a confederation is.

Yes I do. How could slavery have existed if they could legally run away to a state that had outlawed slavery? Most (if not all) slave rebellions were put down by the U.S. Federal Military, not the State militias.

I realize that confederations are a union of independent governments, but those governments can never be that powerful because there was freedom of movement between the States within a confederation. The more States there are and the more free and independent they are of each other, the less likely there is to be institutionalized slavery.

 

[cybrsage]

Yes I do. How could slavery have existed if they could legally run away to a state that had outlawed slavery? Most (if not all) slave rebellions were put down by the U.S. Federal Military, not the State militias.

The same way slavery could exist if you could run away to Canada or Mexico.

I realize that confederations are a union of independent governments, but those governments can never be that powerful because there was freedom of movement between the States within a confederation. The more States there are and the more free and independent they are of each other, the less likely there is to be institutionalized slavery.

You are pretending Germany cannot be powerful because it is in the EU, which is a confederation. Germany is still powerful.

You are also saying the CSA never existed in the 1860s. It had slavery even though it was a confederation.

 

[Anarchist420]

The same way slavery could exist if you could run away to Canada or Mexico.




You are pretending Germany cannot be powerful because it is in the EU, which is a confederation. Germany is still powerful.

You are also saying the CSA never existed in the 1860s. It had slavery even though it was a confederation.

The CSA was a confederation in name only. It had pretty much the same Constitution as the U.S. does. The States in the CSA were not really free and independent.

Germany could have slavery, but it's not decentralized and the EU isn't really a confederation. So yes, slavery can exist anywhere, regardless if there is no government in the entire world or if there is a world republic or a world monarchy. However, the more centralized a government is, the more costs there are for people who don't own slaves to preserve it. If there were no government whatsoever, the costs for slave owners would be a lot higher to the point where it would almost never be worthwhile.

In a democracy, the majority is sovereign, in a monarchy, the monarch is the sovereign, so people are automatically slaves if they live in a government. The question for people is how much of a slave do they want to be. I don't want to be a slave at all and while I could be enslaved by someone in a stateless society, I don't think it's ethical for people to be forced to pay for my freedom.