Why did the majority support the ArticlesofConfederation in 1789, but not today?

[Anarchist420]

We all know that the Constitution could not have been ratified if it had been up for popular referendum in 1789, which was why the Constitutional Convention met in secret.

Yet today, Austro-libertarians (I am one) seem to be the only people who prefer the Articles of Confederation. What is different or what has changed about people today that make them the opposite of people before the CounterRevolution?

The National Popular vote would've even stopped Lincoln by a landslide. Today, Lincoln would win the national popular vote in a land slide.

I think it's because history has been rewritten and people don't realize how much better an Antifederalist society is. History books in our government-run schools point out that Hamiltonian values are better than Jeffersonian values, but they've been proven wrong.

I mean, from 1781-1789, those people could've had it made, compared to what we can have today.

 

[MovingTarget]

Although the Articles of Confederation are great in theory, they proved to be much too ineffective for our purposes. The Constitution isn't perfect by a longshot, but it proved to be a lot more useful than the AoC. I guess we learned from our mistakes...

 

[Carmen813]

Somehow I think 50 different currencies wouldn't do the economy any favors...

 

[Craig234]

Read the Federalist Papers. They were written in your phony utopia period, and are all about why the federal constitution was better than what they had, answering your 'question'.

 

[Cogman]

Somehow I think 50 different currencies wouldn't do the economy any favors...

That, and not having a transcontinental highway system would kind of suck. We would end up with something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Highway

 

[MotF Bane]

Read the Federalist Papers. They were written in your phony utopia period, and are all about why the federal constitution was better than what they had, answering your 'question'.

And be assured, Anarchist, this will be the first and last time Craig will ever reference the Federalist Papers.

 

[Anarchist420]

Haha, yes, it probably will be. I'll admit they're closer to the Antifederalist papers than Paul Krugman.

But the Articles of Confederation was not ineffective and the currency issue could've been solved by the states removing legal tender status from the paper money.

Another common praise of the Constitution is a standing army. You don't need one when you have militias and when no one is going to attack you unless you egg them on. We've never needed a standing army.

You don't need compulsory taxation because if one thinks about it, all of the things the taxes were used for were unnecessary like Washington's salary for instance or to pay the Treasury Department's tax collectors and revenue inspectors (they made up like 1/3 of the budget before Jefferson got rid of them). Washington made at least $1m/year adjusted for inflation.

The trade wars between the states could've been solved by adding an article that said"No state shall limit the people from trading with another state."

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Taking history classes? Your posts of late seem to indicate you are fishing for commentary for your schoolwork.

 

[bamacre]

Somehow I think 50 different currencies wouldn't do the economy any favors...

Exactly, because if one or more of those currencies started being inflated too heavily, everyone would just make a run for the others. I mean, look at the global economy and all the different currencies. Gold is over $1000 USD an ounce, folks.

 

[QuantumPion]

Taking history classes? Your posts of late seem to indicate you are fishing for commentary for your schoolwork.

Is there something wrong with that? It's not like he is asking for homework answers. We were all in highschool once...

 

[piasabird]

Keep in mind that when Lincoln ran for president, it was not his first election. He had been defeated for other offices he ran for because of his previous stance opposing slavery. He realized that one would have to defend the current (at that time) status pro of the constitution as it was written. It was not until the south broke apart and attacked the north and a few years of war before he could have hoped to successfully opposed slavery. Even then there were probably people in the north who may not have supported it if they were not under attack from the south.

To state that the war between the north and the south was just about Slavery might be a bit of a reach. You may want to contrast Lincolns innaugural speech with the speech he made at the end of the civil war. It may be valid to say that the system of slavery may have been one of the causes of the civil war. It was caused also by differences in Monetary Systems or for economic differences.

I think you could compare the reasons to todays conflict between Arizona and the Extreme Left-wing Liberals running the government today. The Civil rights struggle might be another analogy. It just shows that different regions of the USA have completely different ways of thinking and different social standards that are in opposition to each other.

 

[piasabird]

I dont believe gold changes in value. It is only currencies that change in value. It takes $1,000.00 worthless dollars to buy that same ounce of gold, becuase the value of the dollar is less. This is just another way of looking at currency. Gold is real, but currency is not.

 

[bamacre]

I dont believe gold changes in value. It is only currencies that change in value. It takes $1,000.00 worthless dollars to buy that same ounce of gold, becuase the value of the dollar is less. This is just another way of looking at currency. Gold is real, but currency is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW6pUOgklek

 

[Throckmorton]

I dont believe gold changes in value. It is only currencies that change in value. It takes $1,000.00 worthless dollars to buy that same ounce of gold, becuase the value of the dollar is less. This is just another way of looking at currency. Gold is real, but currency is not.

The value of a dollar is what useful things you can buy with a dollar, not how much gold you can buy with it. If gold goes from $500 an ounce to $1000 an ounce, but house prices stay pretty much the same # of dollars, does that mean the price of houses all dropped by half?

 

[Craig234]

the Extreme Left-wing Liberals running the government today.

Piasabird is obviously a species of Cukoo bird.

 

[Anarchist420]

Keep in mind that when Lincoln ran for president, it was not his first election. He had been defeated for other offices he ran for because of his previous stance opposing slavery. He realized that one would have to defend the current (at that time) status pro of the constitution as it was written. It was not until the south broke apart and attacked the north and a few years of war before he could have hoped to successfully opposed slavery. Even then there were probably people in the north who may not have supported it if they were not under attack from the south.

To state that the war between the north and the south was just about Slavery might be a bit of a reach. You may want to contrast Lincolns innaugural speech with the speech he made at the end of the civil war. It may be valid to say that the system of slavery may have been one of the causes of the civil war. It was caused also by differences in Monetary Systems or for economic differences.

I think you could compare the reasons to todays conflict between Arizona and the Extreme Left-wing Liberals running the government today. The Civil rights struggle might be another analogy. It just shows that different regions of the USA have completely different ways of thinking and different social standards that are in opposition to each other.

Lincoln actually still lost the popular vote to the combined popular vote of the split Democratic party.

It just goes to show how direct democracy would've limited government better than a representative democracy in the earlier days of the republic compared to today, where the opposite is true (example, Bush ran on a more limited government platform than his opponent and got the presidency because the popular vote didn't matter)

What I can't figure out is why voters today behave so differently than they did back then. If i were to guess, it's because history has been rewritten and the rewriting of history makes it look like (to the majority of people) small government and decentralism didn't work when in fact it did.

 

[ichy]

Look at Switzerland in the decades after Napoleon for an example of why an extremely weak central government doesn't work in the era of the modern nation state. Until 1848 Switzerland was a real confederation (they still call themselves that, but in reality they're a federal republic) and it simply wasn't a viable way to do things anymore, even in a country that was MUCH smaller than the US. Yes the American federal government has grown too big, but that doesn't mean that the Articles of Confederation would've resulted in a viable country.

 

[Anarchist420]

But see, the Articles of Confederation was popular and it was about setting a good example with things like competing currencies, and no centralized protection of slavery, no standing army, and no compulsory taxation to start corporatism and waste on things that aren't necessary.

It worked well other than a few minor quirks and it would've become stronger, in a good way, on its own.

 

[Craig234]

But see, the Articles of Confederation was popular and it was about setting a good example with things like competing currencies, and no centralized protection of slavery, no standing army, and no compulsory taxation to start corporatism and waste on things that aren't necessary.

It worked well other than a few minor quirks and it would've become stronger, in a good way, on its own.

You sound like someone saying the USSR economic policies worked well other than a few minor quirks. But you are not discussing the issue, just proselytizing.

 

[LegendKiller]

The value of a dollar is what useful things you can buy with a dollar, not how much gold you can buy with it. If gold goes from $500 an ounce to $1000 an ounce, but house prices stay pretty much the same # of dollars, does that mean the price of houses all dropped by half?

People don't bother thinking about such difficult things.

Obviously if gold is above $1,000 it's *only* because the currency has devalued. Gold is immune to bubbles cough*1982*cough.

Ohh wait, let's do a regression analysis on gold and the value of the dollar and find they are not correlated strongly at all.

 

[LegendKiller]

But see, the Articles of Confederation was popular and it was about setting a good example with things like competing currencies, and no centralized protection of slavery, no standing army, and no compulsory taxation to start corporatism and waste on things that aren't necessary.

It worked well other than a few minor quirks and it would've become stronger, in a good way, on its own.

Competing currencies is not a good thing, despite what others say. Should we have 50 currencies and then always worry about having transactional data for the equilibrium of all currencies to avoid arbitrage opportunities? How is that going to filter down to point-of-sale systems whereby you could be facing dozens of currencies, all with different exchange rates?

You cannot have a "United States" with competing currencies. There's a plethora of other reasons for it, but above all, it is massively inefficient and will inevitably lead to a single currency anyway as one will always be stronger than others.

What do you think isn't "necessary"?

Wait, who gives a fuck what you think. 99% of society LOVE progress, most do NOT want to be pig farmers and nail makers, like you advocate with your 18th century economics.

What's humorous is that you guys accuse the "government" of making "big government" when you ignore, as all libertopians do, the main input into government (or anything else). Humans.

No standing army? Is that a good thing? What happens when somebody becomes envious and wants a little lebensraum?

Ohh wait, NOBODY will have standing armies because we'll all be living in utopia as we suddenly believe that the "free market" will save us from wanting to be greedy and evil.

 

[Jhhnn]

Extreme Left-wing Liberals running the government today.

Craig's right- the call of the cuckoo bird is "Whack-a-doodle-doo!"

Yeh, the extreme left wing liberals who bailed out the country's biggest banks rather than nationalizing the bastards, breaking them up into much smaller entities, selling them back into the open market.

There is no effective "Left" in American politics. If there were, a lot of things would be different, including govt option healthcare at a minimum...

"Leftist! Leftist!" is the cry of the Rightwing in deep denial about what they've accomplished, a way to avoid looking at themselves, at their most cherished beliefs...