I do not believe the root of our problems is a central government. I've already argued why the AOC were ineffectual. I am, however, for a limited federal gov't, a limited state gov't, and limited county and city gov'ts.
So let me get this straight. When I point out that the AOC was superior, but interactions between states could have been handled better, the argument is illegitimate because that's not the way things occurred. This despite the fact that there are many examples of nations that have had good relations and free trade between them.
Yet, when you argue that the constitution is superior, but the government could have been better restrained, the argument is legitimate even though that's not the way things occurred. This despite the fact that there is no example of a government that has not grown over time.
Your proposal of a central government that only protects liberty is a lot like a proposal for a giant bohemoth that only gobbles the wicked. It's magical, imaginary, and Utopian. In every example of central government in history the well connected and powerful have controlled it, to their own benefit, at the expense of everyone else.
What's more, it's contrary to the very definition of government as we know it, which includes agressive violence, coersion, and violations of property rights. You cannot protect the rights of the people with an organization whose fundamental charactaristics, and very means of funding, violates them every day.
I believe the root of our problems is the way in which we have issued our currency, and subverted the Constitution, especially as it pertains to the abuse and mis-use of the 16th amendment, which was passed in the same year as the Federal Reserce Act - that was by design. We have slid downhill into a cesspool of gov't expansion and corruption due to those two abominations. Repeal them both and watch the (central) gov't shrink.
Yes, because there are so many examples of governments repealing tyranny, and shrinking over time. Government will magically be filled with angels, who are not corrupt or power seeking. They will have only our best interests in mind.
You imagine that we need a coersive, monopolistic government because people are evil and self interested. But you forget that if people are generally evil and self interested, the government itself will be populated by these same people -- or as usually is the case, far worse -- and because they control an institution as powerful as the government, the evil they do will be much harder to resist.
Ron Paul sought office. Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, and so on....this argument doesn't work.
Of course it does. Ron Paul is the exception, rather than the rule. He's remarkable because he's actually as decent as a normal person. He manages to be in congress and not be a lying theiving bastard like all the rest.
Again, do you think politicians have their reptuation for nothing? Are you seriously going to argue that the average politician is a better, more honest, less power hungry person than the average american? Because that's just beyond absurd.
If we choose, as a people, to have elected representatives, then we should do a better job of holding them accountable.
Who is this "we" that is choosing, praytell? Who is this singular "A" people? There are a large number of people in this country. Are you suggesting that the majority has a right to violently enforce their will on the majority, and control their lives, finances, and bodies?
Again, I don't think ratifying the Constitution is where we went wrong as a people. I think allowing its subversion is where we went wrong and where we are going wrong.
You believe the people can be principled and capable enough to restrain a federal government -- a central, national institution, with no competitors, and a monopoly on agressive violence -- and yet you're going to argue that the people are not principled or capable enough to stop joe blow down the street from creating a gang or mafia?
Either free people themselves, acting on their own volition and with their own resources, are more capable than the government, or they are not. If free people are more capable, why would they need a government? If the people are not more capable, how could they could restrain the government? A government bent on tyranny is the most formidable enemy imaginable. If we can stop it, we can easily obliterate any local wannabe gang.
oops....in this case....Didneyland....lol!
