The Articles of Confederation...Better than the Constitution?

[mediahasyou]

The articles were great. There was no power for the federal government to tax. Most other powers were left to the states. The AoC were a more perfect constitution.

However, the AoC did not include a Bill of Rights except right to bear arms. But, most states at the time had a bill of rights in their own state government.


What is your ideal form of constitution?

[acptulsa]

Had to vote for the Constitution because the Articles left the federal entity unable to provide for the common defense.

[votefreedomfirst]

Voted for the Articles.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Kludge]

Neither isn't a valid answer :p

Neither are satisfactory, Articles does the best job restraining the federal gov't.

[mediahasyou]

Had to vote for the Constitution because the Articles left the federal entity unable to provide for the common defense.

The federal government does provide a common defense. But only if the states are willing. If so, states pay proportionally to their involvement.

[acptulsa]

The federal government does provide a common defense. But only if the states are willing. If so, states pay proportionally to their involvement.

Yes. But in practice, it didn't work very well. Something in the "from each, according to its ability" theory didn't work any better than the Soviet Union did...

[Truth Warrior]

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

[mediahasyou]

Then states will defend themselves.

Because of the fact that you are at war doesn't mean you should force others to fight it for you.

However, that is very unlikely that states wont defend other states voluntarilly. Because once their friendly neighbor falls, that state will be next.

[acptulsa]

However, that is very unlikely that states wont defend other states voluntarilly. Because once their friendly neighbor falls, that state will be next.

The obvious problem with this is that Texas would long ago have taken Oklahoma smooth over--probably over a football game.

Too funny to be possible? Google The World Cup War of 1969.

[Truth Warrior]

But then Texas would be stuck with Oklahoma. :D

[acptulsa]

But then Texas would be stuck with Oklahoma. :D

And us!

Well, if they can survive Kinky Friedman...

[Truth Warrior]

And us!

Well, if they can survive Kinky Friedman...
Kinky makes a lot more sense than a whole lot of the others.<IMHO> ;) :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinky_Friedman

[mport1]

I prefer no Constitution (and no government) but the AoC were certainly better since they gave less powers to government.

[weslinder]

The obvious problem with this is that Texas would long ago have taken Oklahoma smooth over--probably over a football game.

Too funny to be possible? Google The World Cup War of 1969.

Not a chance. Why would Texas want Oklahoma? The only thing they have is oil and cheating football players, and Mexico has more oil.

[slothman]

I prefer no Constitution (and no government) but the AoC were certainly better since they gave less powers to government.

No gov't as in anarchy?
You shouldn't play Civilization then.
Changing gov'ts produces anarchy, and no production.

I choose the Const.
I think the national gov't has too little power for that.
Of course now it has too much.
When you can extort states with highway money you know it's too big.

[torchbearer]

the federal government was never expected to keep a standing army, even under the constitution, unless there was a threat.

[Truth Warrior]

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Jesus (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Luk/Luk022.html#36)

"Then, with a sword, you can get a whole lot of garments plus a bunch of other neat stuff." :D

[mport1]

No gov't as in anarchy?
You shouldn't play Civilization then.
Changing gov'ts produces anarchy, and no production.

I choose the Const.
I think the national gov't has too little power for that.
Of course now it has too much.
When you can extort states with highway money you know it's too big.

Yes, I do mean anarchy so we can have a free society. I oppose the initiation of the use of force and thus can never support any amount of government. I also realize the economic and social benefits of anarchy over minarchism and that government can never remain limited.

[acptulsa]

Not a chance. Why would Texas want Oklahoma? The only thing they have is oil and cheating football players, and Mexico has more oil.

Good points. To give you better access to Kansas City? To eliminate the panhandles lest someone call some of our ranks panhandlers? Because together we might just be bigger than Alaska, thus restoring your rightful place in that ranking? So the Democrats in your legislature have nowhere to hide when it's time to redistrict?

Just for the hell of it?

P.S. I came up with an actual good reason. Because the Thomas Gilcrease Museum in Tulsa has the world's foremost collection of American art, but we're so lame that we won't give it enough floor space and about eighty percent of the collection is in storage. The Amon Carter museum, on the other hand...

[Truth Warrior]

Bigger than Alaska? I think not. ;) :D

[acptulsa]

Bigger than Alaska? I think not. ;) :D

Sounded good for a minute.

[Truth Warrior]

Sounded good for a minute. ;)

[NaT805]

We fought and won the british with the AoC.

[nate895]

The Articles are better, but I would hope they'd amend the articles to only need 3/4 of the states to assent to laws, instead of unanimous consent. Also, I'd hope it to be amended to be obligated to pay their fair share of taxes, or lose the benefits of the Confederation.

[therealjjj77]

I prefer no Constitution (and no government) but the AoC were certainly better since they gave less powers to government.

You might want to read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. Government has a very, very limited purpose. The only situation in which no form of government would exist for any length of time would be if one person was by themselves not interacting with anyone else.

[mport1]

You might want to read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine. Government has a very, very limited purpose. The only situation in which no form of government would exist for any length of time would be if one person was by themselves not interacting with anyone else.

I've read it a couple of times but definitely disagree with that point.

[therealjjj77]

I've read it a couple of times but definitely disagree with that point.

Someone will always take a role of dominance or leadership regardless of whether it is a formal role or an informal role. This naturally occurs all the time when you see two friends together. One takes a leadership role. Their verdict, unless contested, is what dominates the relationship. Sometimes the roles shift, but it's always existent. When it is contested, though, this can lead to a review of the decision, a reversal of role or a separation of persons. The same exact things happen on a societal level.

The very simple role government exists for is the purpose of securing the rights of the governed. But when it in any way is violating their rights, it is destructive to the ends to which it was established and needs to be altered or abolished and replaced with something to fulfill it's purpose.

[Truth Warrior]

It is instructive for everyone to look at the failure of the US Constitution, and how supposedly limited constitutional government has grown to the unlimited, unconstitutional state leviathan of today. Many believe the Constitution was destroyed by the tyrant Lincoln, who assumed the powers of an absolute dictator, while waging a genocidal war to falsely preserve the union. Others point to the traitor Wilson who saw the federal income tax, Federal Reserve, and direct elections of senators all occur during his watch, while needlessly involving the US in a world war that would precipitate a greater calamity, and started the disastrous trend toward world government with the ill-fated League of Nations . Some say it was as late as the socialist turncoat FDR and his unconstitutional New Deal, who also pointlessly involved the US in another world war by deceit that ended up delivering most of Eastern Europe to communism and igniting the Cold War, and was a prime sponsor of the boondoggle known as the UN. The truth is that these three great traitors just more fully took advantage of the inherent flaws that were intrinsic to the Constitution at its birth.



The myth of the golden age of US minarchy is dispelled by looking at events that transpired before the megalomaniac Lincoln trampled over the Constitution. The US Constitution was stillborn at its inception, as it institutionalized slavery as the law of the land – so much for all men being created equal. Shortly after the Constitution was adopted, Alexander Hamilton and his cronies established the tradition of looting the US treasury for the politically connected, which has only grown in its abuse with passing years. Also, shortly after the Constitution was passed, there was an armed insurrection, the Whiskey Rebellion, as many were already disgusted with the tyranny the US government was turning into. Then there was the theft of personal property of Native American Indians that led to genocide in the infamous Trail of Tears. This was followed by a war of conquest and aggression, the Mexican-American War. The only redeeming characteristic of this early period was that the state hadn’t metastasized into the all-encompassing leviathan of today, and if a person was not in one of the many state-proscribed groups, then a person could lead his life with very little government interference. But the seeds of tyranny were always present right from the start, and to think that the state was ever bound by the chains of the Constitution is naïve at best.



A closer look at the Founding Fathers also reveals why the Constitution failed. While many view the Founding Fathers as some type of saints of liberty, a closer inspection reveals that they were not the paragons of freedom that they are typically portrayed as. A case can be made that the reason they favored a decentralized national government was because they distrusted one another, and were afraid of having their powers and rights usurped by one of their own. Even Jefferson, arguably the most libertarian of the lot, like politicians and bureaucrats of all times, was long on rhetoric, short on action. They did manage to publish the very impressive and libertarian Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of freedom that still rings true today, but like politicians everywhere, their actions and words didn’t match up. The fact is they founded a state where their rights were protected at the expense of others, that violated the inalienable rights of others that they proclaimed was their reason for seeking independence. Most people seem to overlook the faults of the Founding Fathers by claiming they were forced to accept what they term “practical compromises” due to political expediency. These people forget that political expediency is just a euphemism for denying liberty and is a poor excuse to justify the state’s tyranny and mayhem.



In view of the abysmal failure of the current US Constitution, I would like to make a proposal that will attempt to blend elements of limited constitutional government, minarchy, and anarchy. This would allow competing elements of these philosophies to concurrently exist. Hopefully this would accomplish two objectives, one being a better system of checks and balances to prevent growth of government, and the other being a living experiment where people could see the benefits and flaws of different systems of government. People would then be in a much better position to determine which type of government suits them and meets their individual needs.



First the current US Constitution would need to be abolished. A new constitutional convention would be required where the libertarian ideals of the Declaration of Independence are actually enshrined as the law of the land. Any ambiguous reference to the common good that could be incorrectly interpreted must be avoided. It should be clearly stated that the constitution is not a living document subject to the interpretation and whims of judges, legislators, and executives, but only serves to limit what powers they may exercise in their duties. Most importantly, it must emphasize individual sovereignty, where the rights and property of individuals are not subject to group whims and demands, and that it is illegal to use force or coercion to gain individual compliance to any program. Forced collectivism of any type must be fully renounced as inimical to the foundation of individual liberty.

[mport1]

Someone will always take a role of dominance or leadership regardless of whether it is a formal role or an informal role. This naturally occurs all the time when you see two friends together. One takes a leadership role. Their verdict, unless contested, is what dominates the relationship. Sometimes the roles shift, but it's always existent. When it is contested, though, this can lead to a review of the decision, a reversal of role or a separation of persons. The same exact things happen on a societal level.

The very simple role government exists for is the purpose of securing the rights of the governed. But when it in any way is violating their rights, it is destructive to the ends to which it was established and needs to be altered or abolished and replaced with something to fulfill it's purpose.

The role of leadership is not the problem, it is the use of force. How can government ever not violate the rights of the people? Government by its nature must infringe on people's rights. The only way this would be possible if 100% of people in a given area who own all the land agree to form a government.

[NaT805]

Government by its nature must infringe on people's rights.

If a government infringes on peoples rights it is not a government. Tyranny infringes on rights.

Government is created to preserve rights, protect liberty, if it infringes rights it is not doing its contracted job, if it breaks contract you can alter/abolish it.

[mport1]

If a government infringes on peoples rights it is not a government. Tyranny infringes on rights.

Government is created to preserve rights, protect liberty, if it infringes rights it is not doing its contracted job, if it breaks contract you can alter/abolish it.

How will this government be funded, by taxation (theft)? A government can only be legitimate if 100% of people in an area agree to form a government just for that area.

[NaT805]

How will this government be funded, by taxation (theft)? A government can only be legitimate if 100% of people in an area agree to form a government just for that area.

Taxes are inherently evil.

Governments are just contracts to ensure the security and happiness of the people. The government isn't capable of using any force an individual cannot. The people should do everything themselves in order to preserve the liberties the contract is designed to secure. If you see someone robbing a store, stop them, if you see trash on the road, pick it up, if you see a pot hole in the road, fix it, or meet and talk with everyone around you locally about it and one of them will say "I'll fix it" or you will all decide "We need $500, as soon as that is met, we'll pay someone to fix the pot hole". No one is required to donate money to fix the pot hole, but if you want it fixed you'd be likely to give the money for it (assuming sound money).

Government is supposed to be passive, it is to only be involved to ensure that all are treated equally under law. Government is supposed to allow man to be free, to do as he wishes without violating the equal rights of others. Governments are not for maintaining roads, water, electricity, school, nothing. Government is only to ensure you are free, as long as you are free, you do not require government.