Do a lot of people not understand why America was formed?

[Cuda1447]

We have threads, over and over again, arguing against Obama, for Obama. Against Democrats, for Democrats. Blah blah blah, same shit from the same people every single day. We have a few whacko's and then a lot of people who are just polar opposite and playing sides.

I don't post here often, but when I do I'm sure its perceived with a Republican tone. (Even though I don't identify myself as Republican).


I am curious about something though. It is pretty much accepted as fact that one of the main reasons the United States was formed was due to excessive taxation. This was why we fought the Revolutionary War. This was why we formed the United States. This is the core reason this country became the greatest country on Earth.

It seems like most liberals, a lot of republicans and the vast majority of the US has forgotten this (or never knew).

Given this information. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone can defend crazy taxes or excessive spending. Nor can I understand why people favor large governements, that I think we can all agree are EXTREMELY inefficient.



We've all heard the phrase the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Well that came from somewhere. I encourage everyone to read the Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. He was a political philosopher in the 1600's and talks a lot about what the role of government should be. Essentially, he says (as do many others and I agree) that the role of governement should be to protect 'life, liberty and property'.


Think about it. Why do we have a government? WE formed one, OURSELVES, to protect certain things. Establish laws, protect each other from people who would steal, kill etc... We also formed it to protect our ways of life from other governments. Mutual protection against aggressors.


The purpose of government is NOT to decide how our lives should be run. It is NOT to redistribute our wealth. It is NOT to help other countries (as nice as that sounds). It is NOT to tell us how to invest our money. Tell us what we can and can't eat, drink or smoke. Basically the purpose of government is NOT to do a lot of the shit that it currently does, including taking over companies, bailing our banks, etc etc....


Now I realize times change and things need to change with the times. We live in a modern society and things aren't always black and white. But for fucks sake, does anyone not think that our government is beyond corrupt? Beyond inefficient? Does a hell of a lot more than what it was designed to do? Does things the people don't want done. Basically, its a fucking joke.



So I pose a question to the the people in favor of large government, spending, excessive taxation etc... Why?

Do you disagree with what the role of government should be as written by John Locke?


I'd really like to have a political philosophy discussion here. Let's try, as best we can, to keep our partisan bullshit politics out of it. Hell, let's try to not even use real world examples. Let's use theoretical examples so we can keep from being partisan and choosing a side. I doubt we will be able to keep this on track and civil (within 100 posts it will be an Obama/Bush debate) but, I can hope.

 

[Aegeon]

I am curious about something though. It is pretty much accepted as fact that one of the main reasons the United States was formed was due to excessive taxation. This was why we fought the Revolutionary War. This was why we formed the United States. This is the core reason this country became the greatest country on Earth.

Right here you run into a problem because this is actually quite a debatable point.

The key argument related to taxes which those fighting the Revolutionary War publicly gave was WAS NOT excessive taxation, but specifically "no taxation without representation." In other words it was not merely about being taxed, but being taxed without having an voice on this issue or how the money was spent. (Some argue the real motivation was simply they didn't like being taxed, but this is a debatable historical issue rather than something actually established.) Its also true that the UK proper was actually taxed at a significantly higher rate when the American Revolutionary War actually began.

You can say you don't intend things to be partisan, but when you start with the premise you did, that's going to be quite problematic.

One other observation to be made is that the US started with a really weak central government with the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately rejected this as unworkable and too problematic, and created a stronger central government with the US Constitution being adopted in 1787. (With many of those involved with the American Revolution being key participants.)

 

[Martin]

Right here you run into a problem because this is actually quite a debatable point.

The key argument related to taxes which those fighting the Revolutionary War publicly gave was WAS NOT excessive taxation, but specifically "no taxation without representation." In other words it was not merely about being taxed, but being taxed without having an voice on this issue or how the money was spent. (Some argue the real motivation was simply they didn't like being taxed, but this is a debatable historical issue rather than something actually established.) Its also true that the UK proper was actually taxed at a significantly higher rate when the American Revolutionary War actually began.

You can say you don't intend things to be partisan, but when you start with the premise you did, that's going to be quite problematic.

One other observation to be made is that the US started with a really weak central government with the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately rejected this as unworkable and too problematic, and created a stronger central government with the US Constitution being adopted in 1787. (With many of those involved with the American Revolution being key participants.)

well put.

 

[MotF Bane]

Aegeon has it.

 

[cwjerome]

To answer your title: Yes. Most people do not really know why America was formed.

Many will come up with a bunch of silly ramblings. Some understand the REASONS for American independence are spelled out in the Declaration quite clearly. And some understand the PURPOSE of the new government is outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution. It's pretty concrete.

But very few ever begin to understand the more abstract philosophical rationale behind the text. Who has deeply studied the long term intellectual impact of Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke?

 

[Cuda1447]

Right here you run into a problem because this is actually quite a debatable point.

The key argument related to taxes which those fighting the Revolutionary War publicly gave was WAS NOT excessive taxation, but specifically "no taxation without representation." In other words it was not merely about being taxed, but being taxed without having an voice on this issue or how the money was spent. (Some argue the real motivation was simply they didn't like being taxed, but this is a debatable historical issue rather than something actually established.) Its also true that the UK proper was actually taxed at a significantly higher rate when the American Revolutionary War actually began.

You can say you don't intend things to be partisan, but when you start with the premise you did, that's going to be quite problematic.

One other observation to be made is that the US started with a really weak central government with the Articles of Confederation, but ultimately rejected this as unworkable and too problematic, and created a stronger central government with the US Constitution being adopted in 1787. (With many of those involved with the American Revolution being key participants.)

That's a very fair point. I'd like to hit on the taxation without adequate representation. It could be argued, that now, we do not have that. I believe, the initial ideas was for the people voting in someone, to actually KNOW that person. Not to be given that candidate, based on one of two parties, to represent, literally millions of people a piece. Can any of us honestly say that what we want is adequately represented? 535 total representatives, for... 300 million people? That's something like 560,000 people being represented per person. Obviously, that isn't cutting it. Now I am not advising we have more congressmen/senators. I do not have the solution to that problem. I would definitely argue that we are certainly not represented properly, or as our founding fathers intended. That is probably a big reason why our government has the problems it does. Is there really even a sense of accountability within our government? Let's be honest. If we don't like the Republican candidate we have in office now, what can we do? Well, simply take the next thing the Republicans shove down our throats. We don't really have a choice. Not like we should at least. You need money and connections to become a politician in this country. That is not the way it should be.

 

[Cuda1447]

Aegeon - I'd like to actually respond to one futher thing you said.


" In other words it was not merely about being taxed, but being taxed without having an voice on this issue or how the money was spent. "


That may well be a contributing factor in why we fought England. But we have that same problem right now. A great example and one that can be looked at by all of us equally, is the stimulus package. Bush passed one, Obama passed one. Both of our parties are at fault. But when this was being discussed, the general public was in an outrage. Sure, MAYBE you had 50% approval for it. MAYBE. But at the end of the day there was so much misinformation, so much politics, that we really did not have ANY voice whatsoever in what our money was being spent on. Such a huge decision was made and the politicians literally did whatever the hell they wanted. Both of them shoved all kinds of pork in the bills do, no doubt to line the pockets of their cronnies. Not only did we not have a say in this, there was literally a public cry for more information, slow down, transparency etc... and the government basically said to all of us, don't worry about it... we know whats best for you.

I think that right there is a perfect example of us not having a say in what our money is being spent on.

 

[Slew Foot]

Welcome to the entitlement generation. Why work for yourself when others can work for you?

 

[Aegeon]

Both of them shoved all kinds of pork in the bills do, no doubt to line the pockets of their cronnies. Not only did we not have a say in this, there was literally a public cry for more information, slow down, transparency etc... and the government basically said to all of us, don't worry about it... we know whats best for you.

I think that right there is a perfect example of us not having a say in what our money is being spent on.

Frankly as stated I would view this as flatly outright misleading rhetoric.

First of all, a considerable portion of what you would consider the "pork" in the bill went to local businesses or projects in the district of the Congressman or Congresswoman in question. While people may decry pork in general, usually when their district benefits they are for it. In other words, pork in bill is commonly actually all about Congressmen paying attention to their constituents and in fact representing them. You can say its a flaw about how our government operates, but its not really about a lack of representation.

For that matter, allot of the rest of your argument is quite iffy as given. For instance, you really don't need that much money or connections to potentially become a politician at the state level, or possibly even working up from the city or county level. At some point you can argue you really don't want individuals who have failed to demonstrate any success or accomplishment in their previous activities regardless. Now its true when you're talking about representation at the national level is clearly heavily about being able to raise money and your connections, but its not like everyone at the Congressional or Presidential level was born into great wealth.

The reality is while it may not be ideal, we both have a voice in the general election for the Representative, and can vote someone else in at the next primary if you don't like the current option. The lack of voter choice claims can certainly end up overstated. In other words, the apparent suggestion taxation is currently unacceptable due to lack of representation strikes me as really dubious.

There are obviously plenty of problems with our current government and it would be nice to find ways to improve things, but I don't view the argument as a particularly effective one against taxation itself.

 

[Throckmorton]

It's "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation without a guy I voted for being in office".

 

[rudder]

It wasn't until 1913 that the income tax became permanent. Except during the civil war where it was used to fund the war, the Federal Government made due with tariffs and excise taxes.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Founding Fathers recognized that no government could function if it relied entirely on other governments for its resources, thus the Federal Government was granted the authority to raise taxes. The Constitution endowed the Congress with the power to "…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Ever on guard against the power of the central government to eclipse that of the states, the collection of the taxes was left as the responsibility of the State governments

Then came entitlements (after someone misinterpreted what welfare meant) and the Federal government trying to control everything under the sun. The rest as you can say is history.

 

[rudder]

Welcome to the entitlement generation. Why work for yourself when others can work for you?

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson

who wrote that in response to the general welfare clause. It was not meant to mean wealth redistribution.

 

[TheBDB]

I don't think it is necessary to maintain the idea of government that was around 240 years ago. Just because that may (or may not) have been what the founders though doesn't mean it is applicable today or we have to follow it.

I'm not saying I support higher or lower taxes, or higher or lower spending, or bigger or smaller government. I am just saying we the people that are alive today should be able to have whatever kind of government we want within the boundaries of the Constitution. If the Constitution needs to be changed there is a process for that and I support it.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I don't think it is necessary to maintain the idea of government that was around 240 years ago. Just because that may (or may not) have been what the founders though doesn't mean it is applicable today or we have to follow it.

I'm not saying I support higher or lower taxes, or higher or lower spending, or bigger or smaller government. I am just saying we the people that are alive today should be able to have whatever kind of government we want within the boundaries of the Constitution. If the Constitution needs to be changed there is a process for that and I support it.

Great, Great point overlooked by too many people!

Growth and change are inevitable and necessary, there is absolutely no way our fore fathers could have forseen the massive society that we live in today and shaped a government that would be suitable today.

When I see people today screaming "oh noes, the constitution, think of our founding fathers!" I laugh and wonder if they would really prefer to be out in the woods with a blackpowder blunderbuss chasing a scrawny turkey while looking out for wild indians. And wearing a wig to cover their balding head caused by untreated syphilus
Those were far differnt times that have little or no bearing on todays society

 

[BigDH01]

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson

who wrote that in response to the general welfare clause. It was not meant to mean wealth redistribution.

Of course Jefferson, resembling a Georgist or Geolibertarian, would have no need for redistribution as he believed every man should have the means to feed and house themselves using a small piece of our ultimate collective resource, the Earth.

He also said...

The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after these comes them most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed.

He also said, which has more bearing in this thread...

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. It is this preposterous idea which has lately deluged Europe in blood. Their monarchs, instead of wisely yielding to the gradual change of circumstances, of favoring progressive accommodation to progressive improvement, have clung to old abuses, entrenched themselves behind steady habits, and obliged their subjects to seek through blood and violence rash and ruinous innovations, which, had they been referred to the peaceful deliberations and collected wisdom of the nation, would have been put into acceptable and salutary forms. Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs. Let us, as our sister States have done, avail ourselves of our reason and experience, to correct the crude essays of our first and unexperienced, although wise, virtuous, and well-meaning councils. And lastly, let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be, nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.

You might also want to read what Jefferson wrote in his draft of the Constitution of Virginia. He gives an outline regarding the reasons for the revolution.

Whereas George Guelf king of Great Britain and Ireland and Elector of Hanover, heretofore entrusted with the exercise of the kingly office in this government hath endeavored to pervert the same into a detestable and insupportable tyranny;


by putting his negative on laws the most wholesome & necessary for ye public good;

by denying to his governors permission to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operations for his assent, and, when so suspended, neglecting to attend to them for many years;

by refusing to pass certain other laws, unless the person to be benefited by them would relinquish the inestimable right of representation in the legislature

by dissolving legislative assemblies repeatedly and continually for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people;

when dissolved, by refusing to call others for a long space of time, thereby leaving the political system without any legislative head;

by endeavoring to prevent the population of our country, & for that purpose obstructing the laws for the naturalization of foreigners & raising the condition lacking appropriations of lands;

by keeping among us, in times of peace, standing armies and ships of war;

lacking to render the military independent of & superior to the civil power;

by combining with others to subject us to a foreign jurisdiction, giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation.

for quartering large bodies of troops among us;

for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

for imposing taxes on us without our consent;

for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences; and

for suspending our own legislatures & declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever;

by plundering our seas, ravaging our coasts, burning our towns and destroying the lives of our people;

by inciting insurrections of our fellow subjects with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation;

by prompting our negroes to rise in arms among us; those very negroes whom *he hath from time to time* by an inhuman use of his negative he hath refused permission to exclude by law;

by endeavoring to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions of existence;

by transporting at this time a large army of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation & tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy so unworthy the head of a civilized nation;

by answering our repeated petitions for redress with a repetition of injuries;

and finally by abandoning the helm of government and declaring us out of his allegiance & protection;

by which several acts of misrule the said George Guelf has forfeited the kingly office and has rendered it necessary for the preservation of the people that he should be immediately deposed from the same, and divested of all its privileges, powers, & prerogatives:

And forasmuch as the public liberty may be more certainly secured by abolishing an office which all experience hath shewn to be inveterately inimical thereto *or which* and it will thereupon become further necessary to re-establish such ancient principles as are friendly to the rights of the people and to declare certain others which may co-operate with and fortify the same in future.

Be it therefore enacted by the authority of the people that the said, George Guelf be, and he hereby is deposed from the kingly office within this government and absolutely divested of all it's rights, powers, and prerogatives: and that he and his descendants and all persons acting by or through him, and all other persons whatsoever shall be and forever remain incapable of the same: and that the said office shall henceforth cease and never more either in name or substance be re-established within this colony.

And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that the following fundamental laws and principles of government shall henceforth be established.

He also included these little nuggets...

Every person of full age neither owning nor having owned [50] acres of land, shall be entitled to an appropriation of [50] acres or to so much as shall make up what he owns or has owned [50] acres in full and absolute dominion. And no other person shall be capable of taking an appropriation.

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].

There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.

No person hereafter coming into this county shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever.

The guy wouldn't have approved of what we have now, but he's not the Rothbardian Libertarian people make him out to be. There is no need to give a man someone else's wealth if everyone has their own land given to them for them to labor and live on.

Jefferson was close friends with Paine, who held very progressive ideas. In the day, Paine wrote of an old age pension, minimum wage, and progressive tax (although Jefferson did as well). Of course, people of the day hated Paine for his attacks on religion.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Thread: Do a lot of people not understand why America was formed?

Pretty much an OP Fail. Ranting against the gov't is partisan. If he doesn't like it there are around 200 other countries in the World he can test drive. Or, he can get to work in his local community and make a difference.

Everyone wants gov't to be more productive and efficient as long as their ox ain't gored. A myoptic rant is useless when not taken in context.

Ten years ago the Unified Budget was in surplus to the tune of $200+ billion. Twenty years ago Federal debt consumed a greater percentage of gov't outlays and national GDP than we will see in any year through 2020.

Changes in proposed spending and taxes over the next few years will hopefully return us to an equilibrium. We can address our primary needs over the next ten years, share the pain, identify problems and solutions, or just bitch about the gov't.

It's easy to see around P&N .... where some folks stand.





--

 

[WHAMPOM]

We have threads, over and over again, arguing against Obama, for Obama. Against Democrats, for Democrats. Blah blah blah, same shit from the same people every single day. We have a few whacko's and then a lot of people who are just polar opposite and playing sides.

I don't post here often, but when I do I'm sure its perceived with a Republican tone. (Even though I don't identify myself as Republican).


I am curious about something though. It is pretty much accepted as fact that one of the main reasons the United States was formed was due to excessive taxation. This was why we fought the Revolutionary War. This was why we formed the United States. This is the core reason this country became the greatest country on Earth.

It seems like most liberals, a lot of republicans and the vast majority of the US has forgotten this (or never knew).

Given this information. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how someone can defend crazy taxes or excessive spending. Nor can I understand why people favor large governements, that I think we can all agree are EXTREMELY inefficient.



We've all heard the phrase the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Well that came from somewhere. I encourage everyone to read the Two Treatises of Government by John Locke. He was a political philosopher in the 1600's and talks a lot about what the role of government should be. Essentially, he says (as do many others and I agree) that the role of governement should be to protect 'life, liberty and property'.


Think about it. Why do we have a government? WE formed one, OURSELVES, to protect certain things. Establish laws, protect each other from people who would steal, kill etc... We also formed it to protect our ways of life from other governments. Mutual protection against aggressors.


The purpose of government is NOT to decide how our lives should be run. It is NOT to redistribute our wealth. It is NOT to help other countries (as nice as that sounds). It is NOT to tell us how to invest our money. Tell us what we can and can't eat, drink or smoke. Basically the purpose of government is NOT to do a lot of the shit that it currently does, including taking over companies, bailing our banks, etc etc....


Now I realize times change and things need to change with the times. We live in a modern society and things aren't always black and white. But for fucks sake, does anyone not think that our government is beyond corrupt? Beyond inefficient? Does a hell of a lot more than what it was designed to do? Does things the people don't want done. Basically, its a fucking joke.



So I pose a question to the the people in favor of large government, spending, excessive taxation etc... Why?

Do you disagree with what the role of government should be as written by John Locke?


I'd really like to have a political philosophy discussion here. Let's try, as best we can, to keep our partisan bullshit politics out of it. Hell, let's try to not even use real world examples. Let's use theoretical examples so we can keep from being partisan and choosing a side. I doubt we will be able to keep this on track and civil (within 100 posts it will be an Obama/Bush debate) but, I can hope.

I would label you ignorant and uninformed before *republican* just for the misinformation stated in your third paragraph.

 

[Modelworks]

You really have to look at how much life has changed in the last 400 years to understand why people are not more vocal about government in general. 16-1700's laws were few, you didn't have much order and you had to worry if your family would make it another month. There was no way to know if someone would come out of the wilderness, murder your family and take what you have. The same applied to taxes. You were just one family, against a country that had money, troops, and the ability to take what you have. So when someone comes along saying they can help you with your problem if you will work together with them to protect your family you are more than willing to join. The government at the time is very fragile, you are really worried if it fails that you will have to go back to being the only one looking out for your family. You spend a lot of time keeping track of what is happening and what changes are being made.

Over time the government becomes more stable, more laws are passed. The risk to your family is less and less. Over the decades families develop a sense of security, and since they now feel secure. Families spend time on things that have a higher priority to them . This is why now people may complain about health care, they may complain about government, but they will not do anything more than complain unless it starts to personally effect their families. Media may make it out like the public is mad and isn't going to allow banking, big business to get away with things like they did anymore, but that is a lie.

As bad as the banking fallout has been, it wasn't bad enough to change things. Until the majority of families are impacted so severely that the impact was big enough to make them worry about where they will live or what food they will eat no major changes will happen. People will complain, worry about taxes, and respond when the issues are brought up, but that is all they will do. Right after complaining they will go back to watching tv, fixing dinner, or doing whatever they normally do. Until people have those other things they do removed from their lives they will not care enough to make major changes. The majority in the USA has food to eat, places to live and jobs to go to, they may complain when they see problems, but as long as the masses have those things, government issues are just a distraction from their normal lives.

 

[bfdd]

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson

who wrote that in response to the general welfare clause. It was not meant to mean wealth redistribution.

shh people still think that the constitution is still up for interpretation.

 

[GaryJohnson]

That's a very fair point. I'd like to hit on the taxation without adequate representation. It could be argued, that now, we do not have that. I believe, the initial ideas was for the people voting in someone, to actually KNOW that person. Not to be given that candidate, based on one of two parties, to represent, literally millions of people a piece. Can any of us honestly say that what we want is adequately represented? 535 total representatives, for... 300 million people? That's something like 560,000 people being represented per person. Obviously, that isn't cutting it. Now I am not advising we have more congressmen/senators. I do not have the solution to that problem.

I think the answer is direct democracy. The technology didn't exist for it when the constitution was written, but it does today.

 

[nonlnear]

I think the answer is direct democracy. The technology didn't exist for it when the constitution was written, but it does today.

Oh dear god please no. The last thing we need is more people in government who think that the only useful test of whether a law should exist is that it be "a good idea".

 

[Infohawk]

This is the core reason this country became the greatest country on Earth.

The reason the US became the "greatest" country on Earth is that it had a continental economic market with Western culture, no dangerous neighbors, with lots of arable land and natural resources.

 

[K1052]

I think the answer is direct democracy. The technology didn't exist for it when the constitution was written, but it does today.

Direct democracy on a national scale is probably the most dangerous and unstable form of government one could implement, which is why the framers stayed well the hell away from it.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Direct democracy on a national scale is probably the most dangerous and unstable form of government one could implement, which is why the framers stayed well the hell away from it.

Dangerous and unstable how?

 

[Ldir]

Direct democracy on a national scale is probably the most dangerous and unstable form of government one could implement, which is why the framers stayed well the hell away from it.

This. Look at how screwed up California has become with their proposition system.