PDA

View Full Version : Walter Williams on why RP couldn't win




RSLudlum
11-14-2008, 12:24 AM
Well, kinda sorta, there's no mention of RP but definitely talks about how popular plundering your neighbor is, and the problems with a candidate that doesn't adhere to this idea.

from a Freeman article written by Walter Williams in 2006 ;)

http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=6598



excerpt:

Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

What accounts for today’s acceptance of a massive departure from the framers’ clear vision of what federal activities were constitutionally permissible? It is tempting to blame politicians, and yes, we can blame them to some extent. But most of the blame lies with the American
people, who are either ignorant of the constitutional
limits the framers imposed on the federal
government or have contempt for those limits.


If They Were Running Today

We can see this by imagining that Madison, Pierce, or Cleveland were campaigning for the presidency today. Imagine their saying to today’s Ameri*cans they cannot find “a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents” or “any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” Or, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” Their candidacy would be greeted with contempt by most Americans. They would be seen as callous, mean-spirited men by a nation of people who have now come to believe they have a right to live at the expense of other people through a variety of federal programs. Such a belief differs only in degree, but not kind, from the belief that one American should be forcibly used, through the tax code, to serve the purposes of another American.

The tragedy is that once such a belief system becomes accept*able, it pays for all Americans to attempt to live at the expense of others. If one American does not use government to live at the expense of another American, that does not mean he will pay lower taxes. It only means that there will be more money left over for others. In a word or so, once legalized theft becomes the standard, it pays for everyone to become a thief. A hundred years from now what Congress does and what is in the Constitution will bear absolutely no relationship at all. As a result Americans will be poorer both in terms of liberty and standard of living. They just might curse today’s generation.

Number19
11-14-2008, 10:45 AM
Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

What accounts for today’s acceptance of a massive departure from the framers’ clear vision of what federal activities were constitutionally permissible? It is tempting to blame politicians, and yes, we can blame them to some extent. But most of the blame lies with the American people, who are either ignorant of the constitutional limits the framers imposed on the federal government or have contempt for those limits.
We need to be accurate here and recognize historical reality. Madison was allied with Jefferson and both supported a republican form of government - a weak, decentralized federal government with power residing in the people through their state governments, that is, a Republic.

Jefferson's arch-enemy and political foe was Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong, central, federal government with little power residing in the people or the states, that is Federalism.

The General Welfare clause was inserted into the Constitution, basically through deceit, lies and subterfuge, by the Federalists. They knew precisely what they were doing. Hamilton always believed that this clause gave the Federal Government unlimited powers. He also was the first to believe that the Federal Government, through the Constitution, had "implied powers". Even though not explicitly granted in the Constitution, he believed the Federal Government had an unlimited power to tax, implied through the General Welfare clause, in order to fund the General Welfare.

Our political system, today, is Federalism - we are not a Republic - descended directly from Hamiltonian politics. So, in this sense, our government, today, is what the Founding Fathers intended.

Xenophage
11-14-2008, 11:20 AM
We need to be accurate here and recognize historical reality. Madison was allied with Jefferson and both supported a republican form of government - a weak, decentralized federal government with power residing in the people through their state governments, that is, a Republic.

Jefferson's arch-enemy and political foe was Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong, central, federal government with little power residing in the people or the states, that is Federalism.

The General Welfare clause was inserted into the Constitution, basically through deceit, lies and subterfuge, by the Federalists. They knew precisely what they were doing. Hamilton always believed that this clause gave the Federal Government unlimited powers. He also was the first to believe that the Federal Government, through the Constitution, had "implied powers". Even though not explicitly granted in the Constitution, he believed the Federal Government had an unlimited power to tax, implied through the General Welfare clause, in order to fund the General Welfare.

Our political system, today, is Federalism - we are not a Republic - descended directly from Hamiltonian politics. So, in this sense, our government, today, is what the Founding Fathers intended.

Yep. Hamilton would love the way things are going in America today.

Jefferson would be at risk of severe depression knowing how it all turned out.

But it doesn't matter... in the end, Jefferson will win. Either by the ultimate collapse of society, or by its triumph, his ideas will be vindicated.

Theocrat
11-14-2008, 11:34 AM
Walter Williams has an interesting perspective, but here are some reasons why I think Congressman Paul couldn't win:

The general electorate's lack of knowledge about what a republic is and how it functions.
Electronic voting machines which hide the votes from the general public's view; election judges and workers who were involved in some pretty compromising actions with the ballots.
The mainstream media blackout and ridicule of Dr. Paul, his message, and his supporters.
The American Church's political ideology on civil matters (due to Biblical ignorance) and their Boogyman tactic of voting for the lesser of two evils.
The overblown focus on race and gender in this election cycle rather than principle and Constitutional merit.
The cultural/societal presentation of our Presidential election in the fashion of being an "American Idol" event.
The lack of Bunchies (http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/) in our revolution.

Anti Federalist
11-14-2008, 11:38 AM
Why...???

Umm, because the "electorate" is a fickle, addled mob of flouridated brain soup zombies, who probably can't remember what they had for breakfast, let alone what happened six months ago?

Truth Warrior
11-14-2008, 11:38 AM
I like Walter. :)

heavenlyboy34
11-14-2008, 11:38 AM
Walter Williams has an interesting perspective, but here are some reasons why I think Congressman Paul couldn't win:

The general electorate's lack of knowledge about what a republic is and how it functions.
Electronic voting machines which hide the votes from the general public's view; election judges and workers who were involved in some pretty compromising actions with the ballots.
The mainstream media blackout and ridicule of Dr. Paul, his message, and his supporters.
The American Church's political ideology on civil matters (due to Biblical ignorance) and their Boogyman tactic of voting for the lesser of two evils.
The overblown focus on race and gender in this election cycle rather than principle and Constitutional merit.
The cultural/societal presentation of our Presidential election in the fashion of being an "American Idol" event.
The lack of Bunchies (http://www.wildpixels.com/bunchies/) in our revolution.



You forgot the NWO and neocons' propaganda!:eek: Good you remembered bunchies, tho. VIVA LA BUNCHIES!!

heavenlyboy34
11-14-2008, 11:39 AM
I like Walter. :)

Me 2. :)

Theocrat
11-14-2008, 11:40 AM
You forgot the NWO and neocons' propaganda!:eek: Good you remembered bunchies, tho. VIVA LA BUNCHIES!!

The NWO and neocon propaganda are interwoven in most of those reasons.

Truth Warrior
11-14-2008, 11:41 AM
I like Anti Federalist. :)

heavenlyboy34
11-14-2008, 11:42 AM
I like Anti Federalist. :)

You mean the collection of essays or the RPF member by that name? :confused:

Anti Federalist
11-14-2008, 11:45 AM
You mean the collection of essays or the RPF member by that name? :confused:

I think he meant both.

:D

heavenlyboy34
11-14-2008, 11:52 AM
I think he meant both.

:D

oic. I like both too. :)

Truth Warrior
11-14-2008, 11:52 AM
I think he meant both.

:D Well now that you mention it. :D

Anti Federalist
11-14-2008, 11:54 AM
Well, I like all you folks too. :D

heavenlyboy34
11-14-2008, 11:57 AM
Well, I like all you folks too. :D


Nice of you to share the love! :D Love helps us cope with the depression quite well sometimes. :)