The Constitution is an inherently flawed document.

[mrperson13]

The Articles of Confederation, though not perfect, was a much better document in terms of protecting individual liberties. The anti-federalists ( the most prominent of whom weren't present at the constitutional convention), feared that the constitution would grant far too much power to the federal government, and though it wouldn't cause problems initially, it would allow for the central government to continually grow in size and the rights of both states and individuals were in danger.

Judging by the direction or country has been going for the past century or so, and where we are right now, I'd have to say that their fears were very much justified. The function of government should be to protect the rights of the individuals, and over time it seems as if we've lost sight of this as a country, and the needs of the "state", and those in position of power have become more important than those of the individual. If you compare the Articles and the Constitution side by side, it obvious that the former was much more concerned with protecting individual liberties and restricting government from becoming too powerful

Thoughts?

[asmolitor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

/thread

[exploration #4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

/thread

i lol'd

[mrperson13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion

/thread

Haha I'm not sure if you actually think that refutes my argument completely or not, but I'll address it as if you do. All Shay's Rebellion does is show that the Articles of Confederation needed some minor revisions to strengthen the ability of the country to maintain an efficient army when necessary. If you think that's the only difference between the Article and the Constitution, and don't realize that the Constiution made drastic changes ( that some of the most influential founding fathers were opposed to.....Sam Adams and Patrick Henry weren't even present at the convention) in terms of strengthening the Federal Government and giving it the potential to become far too powerful, then I suggest you brush up on your U.S. History.

[Duexy]

don't you worry about it

[Love As Arson]

The difference between those two is an alliance of landed aristocracy and a landed aristocracy left to their own devices in their individual states.

[x togepi x]

if we had the articles of confederation, we probably wouldn't have ended slavery as early as we did as well as had even more obstacles for the various civil rights movements.

so yeah, you're not really protecting individual rights, you're protecting the rights of the majority.

[thespearkid]

your opinion is an inherently flawed document.

[saysmydoctor]

I don't agree with either documents.

[mrperson13]

if we had the articles of confederation, we probably wouldn't have ended slavery as early as we did as well as had even more obstacles for the various civil rights movements.

so yeah, you're not really protecting individual rights, you're protecting the rights of the majority.

All of those points are somewhat debatable...but none of them address my main point which is that since this country has been founded, the Federal Government has become large and powerful beyond what any of the founders could have imagined, and essentially no longer serves its original purpose. If you actually think that either the democratic or republican parties (obviously there are exceptions, but not enough to make any sort of difference), are actually concerned with anything besides their own political careers and power I feel bad. Things like the Patriot Act, or even the fact that the war in Iraq was able to be declared are all signs of a Federal Government that has far too much power, and serves the interest of the state and the few who hold power as opposed to primarily being concerned with protecting individual liberties.

This post isn't meant so much to bash the Constitution as it is to point out the fact that back in the 1700's, some of the founders feared that the way in which it was written would allow for the central government to grow in size and power over time and perhaps grow to the point where it was oppressing its own citizens. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these fears were complete unfounded if you were to compare the size and function of the government from say Jefferson's time, to what its become today.

[mrperson13]

I don't agree with either documents.

Interesting, care to elaborate?

[Love As Arson]

All of those points are somewhat debatable...but none of them address my main point which is that since this country has been founded, the Federal Government has become large and powerful beyond what any of the founders could have imagined, and essentially no longer serves its original purpose. If you actually think that either the democratic or republican parties (obviously there are exceptions, but not enough to make any sort of difference), are actually concerned with anything besides their own political careers and power I feel bad. Things like the Patriot Act, or even the fact that the war in Iraq was able to be declared are all signs of a Federal Government that has far too much power, and serves the interest of the state and the few who hold power as opposed to primarily being concerned with protecting individual liberties.

This post isn't meant so much to bash the Constitution as it is to point out the fact that back in the 1700's, some of the founders feared that the way in which it was written would allow for the central government to grow in size and power over time and perhaps grow to the point where it was oppressing its own citizens. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these fears were complete unfounded if you were to compare the size and function of the government from say Jefferson's time, to what its become today.
The fact that, at the time, political freedom was restricted to white men doesn't seem to concern you. I mean, that is a large concentration of power within a privileged group.

[asmolitor]

Haha I'm not sure if you actually think that refutes my argument completely or not, but I'll address it as if you do. All Shay's Rebellion does is show that the Articles of Confederation needed some minor revisions to strengthen the ability of the country to maintain an efficient army when necessary. If you think that's the only difference between the Article and the Constitution, and don't realize that the Constiution made drastic changes ( that some of the most influential founding fathers were opposed to.....Sam Adams and Patrick Henry weren't even present at the convention) in terms of strengthening the Federal Government and giving it the potential to become far too powerful, then I suggest you brush up on your U.S. History.

you would actually need a substantive argument to refute in the first place. shay's rebellion does actually sum up the tale, in that rebelling landowners could have their individual/property rights usurped to pay foreign debts under a loose government such as under the AofC, regardless of the ineffectiveness of domestic/foreign defense which also had critical flaws.

in regards to sam adams, he voted to ratify the constitution, with a de facto compromise that the "bill of rights" be added later, which effectively solves the whole individual rights theme of the thread in terms of the constitution, barring legal precedents and interpretations set throughout the course of american history.

and considering the founding fathers didn't exactly have the prevailing view on rights of oppressed people as history has shown, setting up the founders' view as the ultimate ideology of individual freedom and liberties is quite reckless.

taking all that into consideration, all i see from you throughout this thread, is a slightly more eloquent rumination extending from anti-flag's discography.

[mrperson13]

The fact that, at the time, political freedom was restricted to white men doesn't seem to concern you. I mean, that is a large concentration of power within a privileged group.

No it does, and that's probably the only good point that's been brought up so far. But I don't honestly think that the expansion of civil rights has as much to do with system of government as it does to do with the general culture and attitude of a nation. True the more powerful it is the more it can do in terms of enforcing certain laws, but it does not have the capacity to change peoples beliefs and mindsets about a certain group. I mean think about Martin Luther King, he perhaps won the biggest victory for civil rights in U.S. history, and it wasn't because he was a politician who was able to pass some laws. In fact I think the fact that he was hindered so much in terms of what he wanted to accomplish BY the law and government is an argument in my favor...

[mrperson13]

you would actually need a substantive argument to refute in the first place. shay's rebellion does actually sum up the tale, in that rebelling landowners could have their individual/property rights usurped to pay foreign debts under a loose government such as under the AofC, regardless of the ineffectiveness of domestic/foreign defense which also had critical flaws.

in regards to sam adams, he voted to ratify the constitution, with a de facto compromise that the "bill of rights" be added later, which effectively solves the whole individual rights theme of the thread in terms of the constitution, barring legal precedents and interpretations set throughout the course of american history.

and considering the founding fathers didn't exactly have the prevailing view on rights of oppressed people as history has shown, setting up the founders' view as the ultimate ideology of individual freedom and liberties is quite reckless.

taking all that into consideration, all i see from you throughout this thread, is a slightly more eloquent rumination extending from anti-flag's discography.

Well since all you did was post a Wikipedia link I had to make an assumption about what you were implying. And I don't really listen to anti-flag..but I'm guessing that statement is supposed to imply that am an anarchist?

I'm certainly not an anarchist, as I believe government is completely necessary. My only point, and if you disagree with this, then there's no point in going back and forth anymore, is that government should exist FOR the people. As somewhat of a Classical Liberal I'm of the belief that everyone should be allow to pursue their interests and desires, UNTIL they infringe upon someone elses right to do the same. Government is there to ensure that this happens, and that certain natural rights are protected. Nothing less, nothing more.

[x togepi x]

All of those points are somewhat debatable...but none of them address my main point which is that since this country has been founded, the Federal Government has become large and powerful beyond what any of the founders could have imagined, and essentially no longer serves its original purpose.

the fact that we're using computers and the internet to have this discussion kind of makes this point irrelevant. cultures/societies/our government changes.

If you actually think that either the democratic or republican parties (obviously there are exceptions, but not enough to make any sort of difference), are actually concerned with anything besides their own political careers and power I feel bad.

considering said parties are highly entrenched on local and sate levels, i'm not entirely sure how going back to an arrangement of the articles will fix this problem.

Things like the Patriot Act, or even the fact that the war in Iraq was able to be declared are all signs of a Federal Government that has far too much power, and serves the interest of the state and the few who hold power as opposed to primarily being concerned with protecting individual liberties.

who's to say the states will protect individual rights at all? many states have more restrictions on personal liberty than the federal government. You can't just assume the states are going to suddenly decide to start liking civil rights.

This post isn't meant so much to bash the Constitution as it is to point out the fact that back in the 1700's, some of the founders feared that the way in which it was written would allow for the central government to grow in size and power over time and perhaps grow to the point where it was oppressing its own citizens. I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these fears were complete unfounded if you were to compare the size and function of the government from say Jefferson's time, to what its become today.

I would argue that the state's rights agenda is equally oppressive to minority groups as well as the fact that size of government isn't necessarily the problem, it's what the government does that is. You could feasibly have a big government that protects rights. None of your analysis covers this at all. It's all based on the assumption that states rights=protection of our rights, which is clearly empirically denied.

[Love As Arson]

No it does, and that's probably the only good point that's been brought up so far. But I don't honestly think that the expansion of civil rights has as much to do with system of government as it does to do with the general culture and attitude of a nation. ..
What if the neglect of civil rights were built into the institutions of government?


True the more powerful it is the more it can do in terms of enforcing certain laws, but it does not have the capacity to change peoples beliefs and mindsets about a certain group.
Impotence is not the alternative.

I mean think about Martin Luther King, he perhaps won the biggest victory for civil rights in U.S. history, and it wasn't because he was a politician who was able to pass some laws. In fact I think the fact that he was hindered so much in terms of what he wanted to accomplish BY the law and government is an argument in my favor...
The movement forced the federal government to issue nationwide legislation that provided a step towards racial equality. Interestingly enough, it was those championing state's rights that tried to circumvent this progress.

[Love As Arson]

Well since all you did was post a Wikipedia link I had to make an assumption about what you were implying. And I don't really listen to anti-flag..but I'm guessing that statement is supposed to imply that am an anarchist?

I'm certainly not an anarchist, as I believe government is completely necessary. My only point, and if you disagree with this, then there's no point in going back and forth anymore, is that government should exist FOR the people. As somewhat of a Classical Liberal I'm of the belief that everyone should be allow to pursue their interests and desires, UNTIL they infringe upon someone elses right to do the same. Government is there to ensure that this happens, and that certain natural rights are protected. Nothing less, nothing more.
Capitalism infringes on the great majority's rights. What would a classical liberal do to dissolve its hegemony?

[mrperson13]

I would argue that the state's rights agenda is equally oppressive to minority groups as well as the fact that size of government isn't necessarily the problem, it's what the government does that is. You could feasibly have a big government that protects rights. None of your analysis covers this at all. It's all based on the assumption that states rights=protection of our rights, which is clearly empirically denied.

My assumption is not that states rights=protection of our rights. My assumption is that one powerful centralized government which holds ultimate authority, is more capable of restricting individual rights then a less centralized one is. And again, I'm not saying that the articles were perfect, and a return to them would solve all of our problems. Just that in solving the problem of a weak central government that couldn't get anything done, they created an overly strong one that does not have enough restrictions on it.

""The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry "

[mrperson13]

Capitalism infringes on the great majority's rights. What would a classical liberal do to dissolve its hegemony?

Could you elaborate on that statement please? Not saying that it's wrong, I'm just a little unclear about how exactly Capitalism infringes on the great majority's rights.

[Love As Arson]

Could you elaborate on that statement please? Not saying that it's wrong, I'm just a little unclear about how exactly Capitalism infringes on the great majority's rights.
If I want to eat, I must agree to exploitation.

[mrperson13]

If I want to eat, I must agree to exploitation.

Haha well that's a pretty bold statement, and since you're not really backing it up and it would get us into a completely different discussion I won't get into it. But to answer your original question about how a Classical Liberal would deal with this problem....to me "exploitation" qualifies as a violation of natural rights, and therefore if exploitation were in fact taking place, that is reason for governmnet to fulfill its role and intervene.

[Love As Arson]

Haha well that's a pretty bold statement, and since you're not really backing it up and it would get us into a completely different discussion I won't get into it.
Workers do not see a fair exchange as compared to the wealth they produced. This is necessary, otherwise there would be no means to create profit. Similarly, there is a need for a permanent under-class, with reduced opportunities as compared with the ruling class, in order to have a mass to exploit. Furthermore, any institution that has power, including the markets, must justify itself. With the shape health care is in, imperialism and three billion people in poverty, it seems clear that its very existence is illegitimate and inherently oppressive.

[mrperson13]

Workers do not see a fair exchange as compared to the wealth they produced. This is necessary, otherwise there would be no means to create profit. Similarly, there is a need for a permanent under-class, with reduced opportunities as compared with the ruling class, in order to have a mass to exploit. Furthermore, any institution that has power, including the markets, must justify itself. With the shape health care is in, imperialism and three billion people in poverty, it seems clear that its very existence is illegitimate and inherently oppressive.

Like I said...completely different topic. I never said that pure completely unregulated Capitalism was a good thing,all the points you make would be valid if I were arguing that. I do believe in the government providing basic public goods, as well as minimal interference under certain economic circumstances.

But the point of this topic wasn't to debate the merits of capitalism vs. socialism or even economics in general. It was to point out that a powerful centralized government if left unchecked can very easily trample the rights of the individual. Obviously I'm not going to say we're at this point, but the totalitarian state depicted in 1984 illustrates what I'm getting at. The government slowly and methodologically strips people of their liberties without them even noticing. Everything becomes about the collective good of the state, the concept of individuality is all but non-existent. I'm not anti-government, I'm just anti- oppressive government.

[mrperson13]

And just as an example of what I'd consider government oppression....I'll just bring up the Patriot Act.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1716547/patriot_act_horror_envelops_north_c arolina.html?cat=9

[mmmmmpoetry]

God Bless America.

[Love As Arson]

Like I said...completely different topic. I never said that pure completely unregulated Capitalism was a good thing,all the points you make would be valid if I were arguing that. I do believe in the government providing basic public goods, as well as minimal interference under certain economic circumstances.

But the point of this topic wasn't to debate the merits of capitalism vs. socialism or even economics in general. It was to point out that a powerful centralized government if left unchecked can very easily trample the rights of the individual. Obviously I'm not going to say we're at this point, but the totalitarian state depicted in 1984 illustrates what I'm getting at. The government slowly and methodologically strips people of their liberties without them even noticing. Everything becomes about the collective good of the state, the concept of individuality is all but non-existent. I'm not anti-government, I'm just anti- oppressive government.
My point is, even dating back to the Articles, power was centralized and, if we do make the size of government smaller, there are other institutions that have power which you haven't addressed. Essentially, there would be no change in the dynamics of power.