How is the Federal Constitution better than AoC?

[guyver01]

Drafted during the years 1776 and 1777, while the colonists were still fighting for independence, the Articles of Confederation created a weak national government with most of the governmental powers retained by the states.

The Articles provided no separation of branches. There was no president or any other independent executive, nor was there a federal judicial branch. Congress, the legislature, was the only branch of government. Laws required unanimous votes. Members elected to congress did not vote as individuals, but as states. While congress did have some powers, it could not enforce its laws on the states or the people. States were permitted to coin their own money. There was no regulation of commerce between the states and states could even enter into treaties with foreign nations and declare war, “with the consent of Congress.” Congress could not tax the states or the people, it could only request funds to run the government.


I've bolded the main reasons why the AoC is a total failure...

 

[momeNt]

Please tell me what goalposts you think I am moving.

You begged the question with your "paralysis of collective action" line. I understand obviously that you support strong central government, a strong central bank, nearly everything central, and as such anything to slow down the movement of the central government (100% states to ratify an amendment in the AoC) is seen as an evil.

I find it interesting though that while you strongly oppose confederations such as the EU, presumably because of a lack of collective action which makes the euro mimic a gold standard, you stop short of supporting a movement towards a global federation. That would be create the best environment for strong and quick collective action by the governing body.

Anarchist420's reasoning for a confederation is simply that a strong central agency by the simple virtue of its size and the amount of people under its control makes policy that many disagree with, the smaller the governments (his argument being sovereignty of states) the less people that disagree with the policy. If federations are able to act more towards the collective good of society, why wouldn't a federation support such as yourself push towards a global government?

I feel like i'm sounding crazy here but it's my best attempt at trying to understand this collective approach and abandon my beliefs on individual liberty.

 

[fskimospy]

You begged the question with your "paralysis of collective action" line. I understand obviously that you support strong central government, a strong central bank, nearly everything central, and as such anything to slow down the movement of the central government (100% states to ratify an amendment in the AoC) is seen as an evil.

I find it interesting though that while you strongly oppose confederations such as the EU, presumably because of a lack of collective action which makes the euro mimic a gold standard, you stop short of supporting a movement towards a global federation. That would be create the best environment for strong and quick collective action by the governing body.

Anarchist420's reasoning for a confederation is simply that a strong central agency by the simple virtue of its size and the amount of people under its control makes policy that many disagree with, the smaller the governments (his argument being sovereignty of states) the less people that disagree with the policy. If federations are able to act more towards the collective good of society, why wouldn't a federation support such as yourself push towards a global government?

I feel like i'm sounding crazy here but it's my best attempt at trying to understand this collective approach and abandon my beliefs on individual liberty.

I did not beg any question, I simply stated the reasons why I believe confederations are unstable and unsustainable.

You are simply trying to straw man my arguments now, and it's incredibly tiring. I do not see anything that slows down central action to be evil, only a simpleton would think that. If I believed that to be the case, I would be a supporter of autocracy, and I am not.

The EU is not a confederation either. (it is also not a federation, it is it's own unique thingy) The reason why I oppose what the euro zone is doing right now is that they have come up with a situation that is uniquely terrible. The member states are constrained by their quasi gold standard, but lack the fundamental backup of a true federal government. It has nothing to do with the merits of federalism, it is an indictment of poor policy planning.

As to why I can support federalism without currently supporting a one world government, the only answer I could give you is to tell you to stop with the reductio ad absurdum arguments. There are many aspects to a union that could make it desirable or undesirable, and so just because I believe federations to be generally a good idea (and certainly vastly superior to confederation) does not mean that I would support a worldwide federal government at this time.

 

[ichy]

This thesis can be confirmed empirically if the following two confederations that you conveniently left out of your list of ZERO, abandon their confederation and form federations.

Canada - Confederation
Switzerland - (aka Swiss Confederation)

Switzerland is a Confederation in name only. They became a federal state in 1848 after the Sonderbundskrieg, and in fact their system of government was at least partially modeled on the United States. The Old Swiss Confederation that existed prior to 1848 was completely unworkable in the era of the modern nation state.

 

[momeNt]

I did not beg any question, I simply stated the reasons why I believe confederations are unstable and unsustainable.

You are simply trying to straw man my arguments now, and it's incredibly tiring. I do not see anything that slows down central action to be evil, only a simpleton would think that. If I believed that to be the case, I would be a supporter of autocracy, and I am not.

The EU is not a confederation either. (it is also not a federation, it is it's own unique thingy) The reason why I oppose what the euro zone is doing right now is that they have come up with a situation that is uniquely terrible. The member states are constrained by their quasi gold standard, but lack the fundamental backup of a true federal government. It has nothing to do with the merits of federalism, it is an indictment of poor policy planning.

As to why I can support federalism without currently supporting a one world government, the only answer I could give you is to tell you to stop with the reductio ad absurdum arguments. There are many aspects to a union that could make it desirable or undesirable, and so just because I believe federations to be generally a good idea (and certainly vastly superior to confederation) does not mean that I would support a worldwide federal government at this time.

Characterizing a confederation as unsustainable because of a paralysis of collective action I took to be as begging the question. To me it assumed that collective action is the goal, hence, begging the question.

You're right, I should have stopped short of saying that anything that slows down collective action is evil, should have simply called out your assumption and left it at that.

As for the topic, I personally like that an amendment must take 100% of the states as opposed to 2/3. Considering for the federal constitution to even be ratified it took 100%, why would then amendments take only 2/3? If 1/3 of the states wouldn't ratify because of some clause, they could simply have dropped the clause and added it back with the 2/3 amendment.

We sidetracked ourselves talking about forms of government as opposed to discussing the content of the AoC vs federal constitution like anarchist had created this thread to do.

 

[fskimospy]

Characterizing a confederation as unsustainable because of a paralysis of collective action I took to be as begging the question. To me it assumed that collective action is the goal, hence, begging the question.

You're right, I should have stopped short of saying that anything that slows down collective action is evil, should have simply called out your assumption and left it at that.

As for the topic, I personally like that an amendment must take 100% of the states as opposed to 2/3. Considering for the federal constitution to even be ratified it took 100%, why would then amendments take only 2/3? If 1/3 of the states wouldn't ratify because of some clause, they could simply have dropped the clause and added it back with the 2/3 amendment.

We sidetracked ourselves talking about forms of government as opposed to discussing the content of the AoC vs federal constitution like anarchist had created this thread to do.

Collective action IS the goal of a confederation. Acting collectively is literally the entire purpose of why confederations exist. It doesn't mean they have to act together on everything, but were there not the desire to act together on some things they would never be created to begin with. I am saying that they are not even effective in the things they wish to act together on due to a paralysis created by excessive veto points.

The federal constitution did not require 100% of the states to ratify it.

 

[momeNt]

Collective action IS the goal of a confederation. Acting collectively is literally the entire purpose of why confederations exist. It doesn't mean they have to act together on everything, but were there not the desire to act together on some things they would never be created to begin with. I am saying that they are not even effective in the things they wish to act together on due to a paralysis created by excessive veto points.

The federal constitution did not require 100% of the states to ratify it.

Yea you're right it was 9 state conventions, don't know what I was thinking.

Btw: I apparently took your statement on collective action to mean more than the bare minimum that even a confederation requires, probably because I have you on my chart of communists beside my bed.

 

[feralkid]

barbarians are gone so there is nothing to bring about their failure this time.

"Barbarians" was simply what the Romans called anyone outside the empire.


They are not gone...they are all of us.

 

[momeNt]

"Barbarians" was simply what the Romans called anyone outside the empire.


They are not gone...they are all of us.

Touche!

 

[Anarchist420]

Drafted during the years 1776 and 1777, while the colonists were still fighting for independence, the Articles of Confederation created a weak national government with most of the governmental powers retained by the states.

The Articles provided no separation of branches. There was no president or any other independent executive, nor was there a federal judicial branch. Congress, the legislature, was the only branch of government. Laws required unanimous votes. Members elected to congress did not vote as individuals, but as states. While congress did have some powers, it could not enforce its laws on the states or the people. States were permitted to coin their own money. There was no regulation of commerce between the states and states could even enter into treaties with foreign nations and declare war, “with the consent of Congress.” Congress could not tax the states or the people, it could only request funds to run the government.


I've bolded the main reasons why the AoC is a total failure...

States could enter into treaties or declare war with the consent of Congress. There is nothing wrong with States being able to coin their own money. A major problem today is the Fed's monopoly on the currency which is nationalized. Congress didn't need to be able to enforce laws on the states, and we've seen how terrible in the practice the notion of security for liberty is. Trying to protect individuals by centrally taking away their liberty is stupid, and even if that's possible, some people don't consent to it. The states could protect their people by taking away their liberty. We see how that failed in MA--the high taxes resulted in Shay's Rebellion.

There is also nothing wrong with Congress voting as States. Some people, myself included think that's a lot better.

Also, this country was founded as free and independent states, so when assembled they should control the executive power. The commander in chief, treasury secretary, and state secretary (diplomats, census, etc) shouldn't be independent of the united States assembled. Having a unitary executive sucks, and we've seen how that's worked out with Lincoln and every President starting with FDR.

Execution of enumerated powers of the united States Assembled didn't require unanimous votes they only required 9/13 of the States. That's the way it should be, and requiring unanimous consent from the member states to change the country's supreme law is the way it should be. Why should 3/4 of the States subsidize all of them?

As for the centralized power to tax individuals, that hasn't worked out well because that criminalizes people. The Whiskey Rebellion and Fries' Rebellion both happened the first full decade the Federal Constitution was in effect.

Having a centralized power to tax doesn't make any sense when you can borrow. If government exists, then there should only be the power to tax or to borrow, but not both. Deficits of the union went up more from 1791-1795 vs 1784-1788.

The reason why there was no power to tax under the AoC was because a few states rejected a 5% tariff to pay off the debts from the Revolution. They rejected it because they were worried that it would fund a civil service bureaucracy. Hamilton proved them right when he became Federal Treasury Secretary. The Federalists (the people pushing for the Federal Constitution) had no intention of paying off the debts with taxation, as the pro-Federal Washington Admin proved when it just got the union further in debt.

Finally, there was no need to tax under the Articles of Confederation because they could've distributed the debt to the States based upon population. The reason why that never happened was because the Federalists and speculator class campaigned against doing that. The speculator class saw that they would benefit from centralization of power(http://mises.org/daily/1296).

 

[guyver01]

States could enter into treaties or declare war with the consent of Congress. There is nothing wrong with States being able to coin their own money.

yes. there is something majorly wrong.

you live in Maine... you use the Mainard. You travel to Vermont. But either they dont accept the Mainard... or 1 mainard is worth 1/10th of a Vermontard.

You dont see an ISSUE with that on a national level? part of being a nation is a NATIONAL currency.

Also... How are you a nation if New Jersey can declare war on France... while Pennsylvania is entering a Trade Agreement to sell firearms to France.

you dont see something inherently wrong with this?

 

[Anarchist420]

yes. there is something majorly wrong.

you live in Maine... you use the Mainard. You travel to Vermont. But either they dont accept the Mainard... or 1 mainard is worth 1/10th of a Vermontard.

You dont see an ISSUE with that on a national level? part of being a nation is a NATIONAL currency.

The competing currencies are a good thing because then trade policy will be more decentralized. Would you rather have have access to one weak currency or to one strong currency and one weak currency? The federal government establishes a national currency to increase its power.

Also... How are you a nation if New Jersey can declare war on France... while Pennsylvania is entering a Trade Agreement to sell firearms to France.

you dont see something inherently wrong with this?

I see nothing wrong with it because the only alternative is having the Federal government send tanks into the states to enforce the wishes of the democracy.

 

[guyver01]

The competing currencies

then you are completely against "The United States of America" ...

You want individual countries.

this aint never gonna happen.

go back to your therapist. he should lock you up.

 

[guyver01]

the only alternative is having the Federal government send tanks into the states to enforce the wishes of the democracy.

show me where there are tanks in any state right now enforcing the wishes of the democracy.

false pretense is false.

 

[momeNt]

show me where there are tanks in any state right now enforcing the wishes of the democracy.

false pretense is false.

He means the civil war, which had no tanks....

 

[Ausm]

"Barbarians" was simply what the Romans called anyone outside the empire.


They are not gone...they are all of us.

:thumbsup:

 

[cybrsage]

That said, I've thought it through and there is no way in which the Federal Constitution is greater than or even equal to the Articles of Confederation in my opinion.

The articles of confederation allowed each state to have its own money, and did not force each state to accept money from the other states. This caused chaos and woe. This alone means the AoC needed to be replaced or at least amended.

Of course with any changes to the AoC needing unanimous approval of the States, we can all but guarentee changes would never happen.

 

[cybrsage]

Also... How are you a nation if New Jersey can declare war on France... while Pennsylvania is entering a Trade Agreement to sell firearms to France.

you dont see something inherently wrong with this?

No, for France would wipe out New Jersey and then we can repopulate it with a better group of people.

No more Jersey Shore...maybe these AoC did have their benefits...