"The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

[South Park Fan]

No, I don't.

1) Madison never instituted draft, and we won the War of 1812 without a draft.

Perhaps you are unfamilar with Henry Clay's speech denouncing Madison for attempted to push a draft?

2) We did not invade Canada, we counter-attacked the British empire by invading the province of Canada. It was good military strategy, be we had bad luck because Napoleon had just attacked Russia, so it took pressure off the British. We still won the war anyway.

"Good military strategy" is trying to impose American rule on a people that didn't want it, based on the faux justification of being at war? Also, how can we "counterattack" the British Empire when it was the United States that declared war on Britain? Was Germany "counterattacking" Poland by invading them? Also, the Treaty of Ghent restored the status quo ante bellum, so it was essentially a stalemate in terms of outcome.

3) The Second bank was the same as the first bank, so no precedent was established. But Madison vetoed a different bank bill in January 1815 that would have expanded the powers of the bank. Madison believed that the first congress and George Washington set a precedent on what powers a central bank and could not have. Madison's constitutional precedent should have been used in 1913 to stop the Fed.

Any libertarian should oppose any form of central bank. It doesn't matter what "precedent" says about it. Washington and Hamilton were wrong when they implemented the First National Bank, so trying to defend Madison by hiding under Washington's legacy doesn't work.

We won the War of 1812 with a federal budget of less than 4% of the GNP. That would be like winning a war with China today with a federal budget of $600 billion.

That was still a drastic increase of the federal budget compared to the budget prior to the war. So one should support Madison because he didn't spend quite as much as modern presidents (which isn't saying anything at all!)?

If you want an idea how remarkable James Madison was, imagine what was going on in January 1815:

1) the Hartford convention was discussing possible secession and non-cooperation.

Good for them. That would be a win-win: New Englanders wouldn't have to fight in a war that didn't benefit them and Southerners wouldn't be burdened by protectionist tariffs.

2) the treaty talks in Europe had not progressed all that much for 6 months.

3) the British were favored to win the Battle of New Orleans.

So Madison gets credit for Jackson's military victory?

4) the federal government was desperate for money, trying to fight a war with no central bank or income tax.

Maybe they shouldn't have fought the war in the first place. One of the many benefits of not having a central bank or income tax is that it restrains the governments' warmaking endeavors.

Yet despite this INCREDIBLE PRESSURE, James Madison vetoed the bank bill.

Non sequitor.

 

[Deborah K]

How frighteningly funny and ironic coming from you. I don't have any disdain, merely disappointment. So close, but yet so far away. I'm for freedom, but I support taxation. Funny.

You won't even debate, acknowledge, or illustrate in any manner when presented with conflicting information to your world view. That is to be though, you are older, and older people generally are rigid in their views. It is to be expected. This revolution will be won with the younger generation.

Your so-called "disappointment" is well hidden by your disdain. The reason you think I don't engage you is because I'm unwilling to go in circles and repeat myself over and over. Make the effort to understand my position before you accuse me of old age and rigidity in my views. I'm not so easily swayed as a young person is because I have life experience under my belt. And while you're at it, you might try remembering that Ron Paul is 73.

I do not support taxing people's right to exist ( taxing our wages). So, you're off base there. You would know that if you took the time to read my threads. But I also understand that gov't is supposed to be in place to protect the rights of individuals and that requires funding it. Dr. Paul's position on this is very clear and I am in agreement with him on it i.e. federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs. If it is a voluntary tax, then it can't be theft, and it is no different than a community voluntarily hiring security, for example. I understand that it has gone way out of control, and I have stated that I firmly believe it is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel. It is no different than a parent who loses control over their kids - whose fault is that? Or a business owner that lets his employees run amok - whose fault is it? Same difference in my book.

Look, you have a right to believe how you want, as I do. My issue with you and others like you, is that you are 'bringing clubs to the meeting' and verbally clobbering anyone who isn't as "enlightened" as you. Justify it if you must, but understand that freedom prevails through civil discourse, not heavy-handedness.

 

[Travlyr]

Your so-called "disappointment" is well hidden by your disdain. The reason you think I don't engage you is because I'm unwilling to go in circles and repeat myself over and over. Make the effort to understand my position before you accuse me of old age and rigidity in my views. I'm not so easily swayed as a young person is because I have life experience under my belt. And while you're at it, you might try remembering that Ron Paul is 73.

I do not support taxing people's right to exist ( taxing our wages). So, you're off base there. You would know that if you took the time to read my threads. But I also understand that gov't is supposed to be in place to protect the rights of individuals and that requires funding it. Dr. Paul's position on this is very clear and I am in agreement with him on it i.e. federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs. If it is a voluntary tax, then it can't be theft, and it is no different than a community voluntarily hiring security, for example. I understand that it has gone way out of control, and I have stated that I firmly believe it is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel. It is no different than a parent who loses control over their kids - whose fault is that? Or a business owner that lets his employees run amok - whose fault is it? Same difference in my book.

Look, you have a right to believe how you want, as I do. My issue with you and others like you, is that you are 'bringing clubs to the meeting' and verbally clobbering anyone who isn't as "enlightened" as you. Justify it if you must, but understand that freedom prevails through civil discourse, not heavy-handedness.

Good answer. Yet, they are not "enlightened." They make false assumptions and think they have it all figured out. They read something on Mises and believe it without question. It's sad really. You are absolutely right: "gov't is supposed to be in place to protect the rights of individuals and that requires funding"

No one has presented a complete answer on how a society gets organized without government. And I have asked many times... only to have them point me to Stefbot, Rothbard and others... but they never answer the question... "absent government, how are rights protected?"

A republic is the best answer ever devised. The problem is who it serves. Right now it is serving the central banking master, but when the people get really fed up... I mean really fed up... fed up to the point that real revolution takes place... the republic will be restored for the people. The answer is in the U.S. Constitution... it was written for the people... it is brilliant.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Perhaps you are unfamilar with Henry Clay's speech denouncing Madison for attempted to push a draft?

It was Daniel Webster, not Henry Clay. Madison never asked for a draft. James Monroe asked for the states to draft if not enough volunteers enlisted. Webster was a big government fear-mongering windbag. There wasn't even close to enough votes to pass a draft bill and even if it passed, Madison would have vetoed it.

"Good military strategy" is trying to impose American rule on a people that didn't want it, based on the faux justification of being at war? Also, how can we "counterattack" the British Empire when it was the United States that declared war on Britain? Was Germany "counterattacking" Poland by invading them? Also, the Treaty of Ghent restored the status quo ante bellum, so it was essentially a stalemate in terms of outcome.

The province of Canada was imposing its will on French people, which was almost half its population, and a large proportion of English people wanted to be free of the British military empire.

Canada was providing naval bases for the British assault on American shipping. The British navy had seized about 400 vessels and kidnapped around 8000 men. If this wasn't bad enough, the British navy was not just kidnapping the men, but using them in their own navy to impose world domination. Canada was also providing material support to Indians who were encouraged to attack Americans and scalp them. On top of all this, there were two incidents were the British fired upon Americans, the Leander and Chesapeake shootings. In both cases, several men were in injured, killed and kidnapped and the ships seized.

You are basically a liar. You talk of Canada like it was a neutral independent nation, when in fact is was part of the British military empire. So are you pro or anti-empire? I am anti-empire. You seem to be pro-empire. Ron Paul is anti-empire.

Any libertarian should oppose any form of central bank. It doesn't matter what "precedent" says about it. Washington and Hamilton were wrong when they implemented the First National Bank, so trying to defend Madison by hiding under Washington's legacy doesn't work.

I do oppose a central bank. But if you understand what was going on during the time of first congress, you will understand why they voted for a temporary bank and then George Washington signed it. If you understand this, then you can explain why the Fed is blatantly unconstitutional, yet be able to handle the retort that George Washington and James Madison signed bank bills.

That was still a drastic increase of the federal budget compared to the budget prior to the war. So one should support Madison because he didn't spend quite as much as modern presidents (which isn't saying anything at all!)?

James Madison's spending was vastly lower than modern presidents. The total federal spending was less than 4% of the GNP, which would be like a $600 billion dollar federal budget today. Also, the war was declared by congress, not by James Madison, per the US Constitution. Once war is declared it is the president's job to win it.

Good for them. That would be a win-win: New Englanders wouldn't have to fight in a war that didn't benefit them and Southerners wouldn't be burdened by protectionist tariffs.

The main motive of the Hartford Convention was to keep the Mississippi river closed to American commerce. The NE banking interests wanted a monopoly on trade. James Madison wanted the Mississippi river open to American commerce.

So Madison gets credit for Jackson's military victory?

Some credit, since Madison was the commander-in-chief. James Monroe deserve some credit for working to supply Jackson. The pirates Lafitte helped, too. But Jackson did a marvelous job and got most of the credit for that victory which he deserved.

Maybe they shouldn't have fought the war in the first place. One of the many benefits of not having a central bank or income tax is that it restrains the governments' warmaking endeavors.

So you are pro-empire? People exploited and suppressed by a military empire shouldn't fight back? Do you also condemn those who resist the American empire in the Middle East & central Asia today? Or should they just lay down and take it?

Non sequitor.

Your entire post is nonsense.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Good answer. Yet, they are not "enlightened." They make false assumptions and think they have it all figured out.

I want to separate the B from the S on minarchy versus anarchy so I am going to address this remark in depth.

No one has presented a complete answer on how a society gets organized without government.

Here is a complete answer...

Every minarchist I have ever heard defend the Constitution claims this:

I understand that it has gone way out of control, and I have stated that I firmly believe it is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel. It is no different than a parent who loses control over their kids - whose fault is that? Or a business owner that lets his employees run amok - whose fault is it? Same difference in my book.

That right there is what we call almost truth. What does it mean? It means the only way minarchy is possible is if people believe in it. Ironically this is not far from the truth and is only a small leap away from truth.

The world is anarchy. This is truth. This is fact.

So what does that make society? Obviously something other than anarchy. Since anarchy is truth any intervention against anarchy is artifical. It is fiction. It is make believe. It is only sustainable if people believe in it.

The greater truth is that ANY society is only sustainable if people believe in it. Since voluntaryism is also in the realm of fiction in that it is a form of society or an intervention against nature due to the non-aggression principle it also is only sustainable if people believe in it.

Any other society ever known to man is only sustainable if people believe in it. Monarchy, or whatever else you want to call it.

So here is what the best minarchist argument that can be made boils down to even though none of the minarchists around here have ever made it.

Minarchy is more viable because the idea is more marketable and sellable than voluntaryism. This argument can really only be made because more people have heard about the Constitution than have heard about voluntaryism despite the fact that more people who have heard about the non-aggression principle comprehend it far easier than the Constitution.

But the more people have heard about it argument is weak and despite the fact I'd rather not because it is not necessary, we can certainly compare the marketing potential and features of two fictional society's that are only sustainable if people believe in them and require people achieving a state of enlightenment. Not to mention if minarchy was a popular product the United States wouldn't even be in the mess that it is in.

If it takes a majority believing in something then I would rather be selling the best product the market has to offer... voluntaryism.

But I am not really selling voluntaryism. I am selling truth. I am selling society is only sustainable with magic pixie fairy dust. The magic pixie fairy dust is eternal vigilance. Eternal vigilance is nothing more than generations of people believing in a particular type of intervention against the natural world of anarchy aka... society. If everyone realizes society is only sustainable because we believe in it why choose coercion and second best?

As I mentioned earlier minarchy and voluntaryism are not popular products. It really doesn't matter which one you are selling because people are not buying what we are selling. Arguing that one society is better than another society (minarchy versus socialism) is arguing over the features of two fictional products. It is a much weaker argument than the truth. The truth is society is fiction and is only sustainable if a majority of force (whether or not that is a majority of people is irrelevant) believes in it. Which might be changing in the near future if there is major economic turmoil.

 

[Brian Defferding]

Update: I am now in a new epic debate with the same guy over the Tenth Amendment, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. I will say this, this dude is good, as I would expect a law graduate to be.

Go here, and see my posts (I am under the same user name), and check out his response (his user name is Frozen Sooner):

http://606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=193848&page=188

Check out the next pages to see the debate in length.

 

[Noob]

I do wonder what America would be like today if America was successful in capturing Canada, and how the Civil War would have played out with Canada being part of America at the time.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

//