Would you support a: Federalist or Anti-Federalist?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Should be a neat poll.

[BuddyRey]

For the first year and a half after discovering Ron Paul, I was pretty much a rank-and-file Constitutionalist. But, after reading and being influenced by Voluntaryist writers like Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, I've come to the conclusion that coercive government itself is the problem. Of course, that doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to choose to be governed, taxed, et cetera, but it does mean that to compel those people who have not chosen a government to observe the customs of your own is both arbitrary and morally questionable.

If governments must exist, then I'll pick the Anti-Federalist model of government every time, because at least then, people have some modicum of choice and personal decision in how they are to be governed.

[FrankRep]

I'll accept either one at the moment since we have nothing.

[TCE]

That is a question I have been wondering, two questions actually:

1. What would the Federalists (specifically Alexander Hamilton) say about our current system? Would they think it's working fine or would they dislike it?

2. If the Anti-Federalists saw the country today and could go back and change the Constitution, would they change it?

[literatim]

It would depend on the Federalist.

[Anti Federalist]

I shouldn't have to answer this question.

[tremendoustie]

I shouldn't have to answer this question.

lmao :D

[FreeTraveler]

18 to 0 at the present. LMAO!

You shoulda put voters' names on it so we'd know who to lynch. :D

[Shed]

TCE, Hamilton (http://mises.org/store/Hamiltons-Curse-P534.aspx)would be pleased with himself.

[paulitics]

united States.

[Stary Hickory]

People that know the difference will all vote the same way

[muzzled dogg]

ez

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

The history books give you the impression that the liberty based Articles of Confederation were a horrible failure and that the Anti-Federalists died off.

Little do they know we're still here.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Hamilton was one of the big government statists among the founders. But what they considered big government back then would be whack-job libertarianism today. He'd probably vote with Ron Paul 100%.

[literatim]

Hamilton was one of the big government statists among the founders. But what they considered big government back then would be whack-job libertarianism today. He'd probably vote with Ron Paul 100%.

Hamilton was a weasel. He was the reason we got our first central bank and he almost took us to war with France.

[tremendoustie]

I love this poll :)

Where else would people know the difference let alone get a perfect 33-0 record?

[demolama]

Hamilton rejected Adam Smith. Thought he was dead wrong. In that regards I highly doubt he would be with Ron Paul.

[CGeoffrion]

haha 36/0 now...

Jefferson would get along with us juuuuuust fine.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Hamilton was a weasel. He was the reason we got our first central bank and he almost took us to war with France.

But compared to 95% of the people currently in the 3 branches government... I'd take my chances with Hamilton.

[Natalie]

42 to 0! RPF ftw!

[Conza88]

43 zip.. lol

If Kludge were here, he'd vote the 1.. just for fun..

[BuddyRey]

Wow...Someone finally voted fed. I wonder if this user will out him or herself and submit to a well-deserved but good-natured ribbing! :D

[CCTelander]

Here's what I don't get. It seems, based upon this poll, that the overwhelming majority here prefer Anti-Federalist ideas to those of the Federalists.

Why then do so many so adamantly support the FEDERALIST CONstitution?

Seems to me there's a great deal of cognative dissonance going on. The inconsistency and incongruance are staggering.

[iddo]

Here's what I don't get. It seems, based upon this poll, that the overwhelming majority here prefer Anti-Federalist ideas to those of the Federalists.

Why then do so many so adamantly support the FEDERALIST CONstitution?

First we dismantle the warfare/welfare state and return to federalist limited government.
Then we get rid of the federalists and switch to anti-federalism so that the federal gov no longer has supreme authority over the states.
Then we get rid of the anti-federalists and switch to anarchism so that the gov is based on voluntarism instead of taxation.
All clear?:)

[Objectivist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)

[CCTelander]

First we dismantle the warfare/welfare state and return to federalist limited government.
Then we get rid of the federalists and switch to anti-federalism so that the federal gov no longer has supreme authority over the states.
Then we get rid of the anti-federalists and switch to anarchism so that the gov is based on voluntarism instead of taxation.
All clear?:)

That's ONE WAY things might go down. A more likely scenario might run like this:

By some MIRACLE, we manage to somehow cut government back to within the "limits" placed upon it by the CONstutution.

Most "liberty advocates" then become complacent and get back to actually living their own lives. Some are even satisfied that that's all that needed to be done.

The rest attempt futilely to continue the process toward actual freedom. Unfortunately, the impetus to move in that direction has ONLY existed, historically, during "bad" times, particularly bad economic times, so they are unable to gather the support of their fellow liberty advocates in their quest.

The whole miserable show starts all over again, but this time at a dramatically accelerated rate due to the existence of more advanced technology and greater experience on the part of those seeking to rule the rest of us.

Our grandchildren, or great grandchildren suffer under even worse tyranny than we do, and are forced to go through the same Hell we did to try to achieve the freedom that we let slip through our grasp.

[tremendoustie]

First we dismantle the warfare/welfare state and return to federalist limited government.
Then we get rid of the federalists and switch to anti-federalism so that the federal gov no longer has supreme authority over the states.
Then we get rid of the anti-federalists and switch to anarchism so that the gov is based on voluntarism instead of taxation.
All clear?:)

I'm down with that plan! :cool:

[tremendoustie]

That's ONE WAY things might go down. A more likely scenario might run like this:

By some MIRACLE, we manage to somehow cut government back to within the "limits" placed upon it by the CONstutution.

Most "liberty advocates" then become complacent and get back to actually living their own lives. Some are even satisfied that that's all that needed to be done.

The rest attempt futilely to continue the process toward actual freedom. Unfortunately, the impetus to move in that direction has ONLY existed, historically, during "bad" times, particularly bad economic times, so they are unable to gather the support of their fellow liberty advocates in their quest.

The whole miserable show starts all over again, but this time at a dramatically accelerated rate due to the existence of more advanced technology and greater experience on the part of those seeking to rule the rest of us.

Our grandchildren, or great grandchildren suffer under even worse tyranny than we do, and are forced to go through the same Hell we did to try to achieve the freedom that we let slip through our grasp.

I'll keep working for real freedom. I disagree that it would grow back faster, however. I think the key is not technology, or experience of the tyrants, but the vigilance of the populace, and social norms. That is what slows the growth of government.

If we were able to get the government back to constitutional limits, most would understand the reason for these limits, and would not tolerate the rapid expansion we are experiencing today. I think we would be safe from a government explosion for at least a few generations.

[Pericles]

Here's what I don't get. It seems, based upon this poll, that the overwhelming majority here prefer Anti-Federalist ideas to those of the Federalists.

Why then do so many so adamantly support the FEDERALIST CONstitution?

Seems to me there's a great deal of cognative dissonance going on. The inconsistency and incongruance are staggering.

Because even a Federalist would be an improvement over what we now have.

[Conza88]

Hahahah :D

[Voluntary Man]

I didn't understand the question.

Are we speaking of the position of those who wrote in support of the Constitution vs. the position of those who wrote against its adoption?

Are we speaking of classical federalism? If so, anti-federalism could be defined from either side, opposition in favor of a strong central government or opposition in favor any number of looser forms.

It's my understanding that the Federalists and Anti-federalists of the post Revolutionary period were actually misnamed, in that the Federalists first adopted their name to appear to be champions of federalism (better represented by the earlier Articles of Confederation), although actually supporting the stronger central government represented by the newly proposed Constitution, while the Anti-federalists took their name, not to oppose federalism, but to oppose its dilution by the more centralized government to be created by the new Constitution -- so, the later group opposed not federalism but the misnamed Federalists.

In fact, partly because of this confusion, Jefferson's Anti-federalist party was soon renamed the Republican Party.

Having said all that, though, I side with Jefferson.

[Conza88]

I didn't understand the question.

Are we speaking of the position of those who wrote in support of the Constitution vs. the position of those who wrote against its adoption?

Are we speaking of classical federalism? If so, anti-federalism could be defined from either side, opposition in favor of a strong central government or opposition in favor any number of looser forms.

It's my understanding that the Federalists and Anti-federalists of the post Revolutionary period were actually misnamed, in that the Federalists first adopted their name to appear to be champions of federalism (better represented by the earlier Articles of Confederation), although actually supporting the stronger central government represented by the newly proposed Constitution, while the Anti-federalists took their name, not to oppose federalism, but to oppose its dilution by the more centralized government to be created by the new Constitution -- so, the later group opposed not federalism but the misnamed Federalists.

In fact, partly because of this confusion, Jefferson's Anti-federalist party was soon renamed the Republican Party.

Having said all that, though, I side with Jefferson.

The Anti-Federalists Were Right (http://mises.org/daily/2335)- Gary Galles

The Political Economy of the Anti-Federalists (http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_6.pdf) - James. P. Philbin

[oyarde]

Alright, what is going on here ? How can I vote if the poll is closed . A little voter fraud going on here ? I have my id , registration card and fluid sample and everything .

[Travlyr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKiyOpKhUI4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKiyOpKhUI4&feature=player_embedded

[Conza88]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKiyOpKhUI4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKiyOpKhUI4&feature=player_embedded

You asked for it bro http://www.blimg.us/game/emotions/surprised.gif, first warning.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI


Question: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written. But fortunately we ended up with a good Constitution [at least tries to limit government], and our problem is more that we don’t obey the good parts about it. I think it’s a very interesting philosophic issue, and I hope that someday we mature enough to have that argument.”

[Travlyr]

I probably would have been an anti-Federalist too in 1787, but this is 2012.

[Conza88]

I probably would have been an anti-Federalist too in 1787, but this is 2012.

Right, so then you should maybe stop wasting your/others time by trying to argue against those who are holding the BANNER HIGH OF A TRUE LIBERTY {END GOAL}, which is also incidentally Ron Paul's.

That'd make sense, no? Then go tell your 'pals' newbitech.

[Travlyr]

Right, so then you should maybe stop wasting your/others time by trying to argue against those who are holding the BANNER HIGH OF A TRUE LIBERTY {END GOAL}, which is also incidentally Ron Paul's.

That'd make sense, no? Then go tell your 'pals' newbitech.
No, that does not make sense. I do not agree that you have a monopoly on the banner of true liberty. I am not going to go around criticizing people for supporting the rule of law the constitution. In fact, Articles IV & V make perfect sense to me as well as the "Bill of Rights." I suspect a lot of people would be quick to join the discussion if not for the wrath of anarchists.

[heavenlyboy34]

Woulda voted AF if the poll were open. :(

[Shane Harris]

For the first year and a half after discovering Ron Paul, I was pretty much a rank-and-file Constitutionalist. But, after reading and being influenced by Voluntaryist writers like Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, I've come to the conclusion that coercive government itself is the problem. Of course, that doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to choose to be governed, taxed, et cetera, but it does mean that to compel those people who have not chosen a government to observe the customs of your own is both arbitrary and morally questionable.

If governments must exist, then I'll pick the Anti-Federalist model of government every time, because at least then, people have some modicum of choice and personal decision in how they are to be governed.

I went through (AM going through) this exact process and shift from classical liberal to anarcho-capitalist. Not quite there yet, but definitely on my way. Currently in the realm of minarchism.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Probably anti-Federalist because it would take longer for government to get all the way back to the current size(and bigger)

[WilliamC]

The only thing so great about the Constitution was that it was better than anything else, but it wasn't perfect by any means.

Anti all the way.

[oyarde]

The only thing so great about the Constitution was that it was better than anything else, but it wasn't perfect by any means.

Anti all the way. But , it is , the most perfect document by man , in an inperfect world , so , lets use it !!

[heavenlyboy34]

But , it is , the most perfect document by man , in an inperfect world , so , lets use it !!
LMAO!!! :D ;)

[TheTexan]

Yes, I guessed the right answer! I'm so good at these polls

[donnay]

Definitely an Anti-Federalist! I even married one! :D

[oyarde]

LMAO!!! :D ;) Straight up , I meant it , I have reviewed everything known to man , It is the best.

[Conza88]

No, that does not make sense. I do not agree that you have a monopoly on the banner of true liberty. I am not going to go around criticizing people for supporting the rule of law the constitution. In fact, Articles IV & V make perfect sense to me as well as the "Bill of Rights." I suspect a lot of people would be quick to join the discussion if not for the wrath of anarchists.

It makes perfect sense. You're wasting your time attacking people who want more liberty than you do. How about you grow a pair, stfu, and go focus on the statists yeah?

I'm defending the concept of voluntarism, I'm the one pointing out.. hey guys look, don't get off at this stop.. there is a better place at the next!

I'm not attacking people who want to try get people on the 'freedom train'... which is delusional, given your bs accusation.

Do you agree or disagree that people should be forced to live under a form of government they have not voluntarily consented to?

No? - Then you agree with Lysander Spooner and Ron Paul.
Yes? - Then you're a statist, minarchist, strict constitutionalist... and should we ever get back to the size of government outlined above, you then become the enemy... because you are willing to hold the guns to the head of Ron Paul, myself and others... and try force us to live under a regime we do not accept.

Get a grip. 2nd warning.

[Knightskye]

Even Hamilton knew that the power to declare war was vested in the legislature.

[heavenlyboy34]

Straight up , I meant it , I have reviewed everything known to man , It is the best.
Keep reading...you'll get it right eventually. ;) :)

[Travlyr]

The Anti-Federalists did win. Without implementation of their wisdom the Bill of Rights would not have been included.


United States Constitution - Young Americans For Liberty


Forward By Ron Paul

"The Constitution is a revolutionary document. It is also a perfect illustration of how freedom brings people together.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 had to draft a charter to limit government and secure liberty for Americans of all kinds -- farmers and industrialists, Christians and deists, from big states and small states. Nothing else but freedom could overcome the divisions and work for everybody.

The Constitution was not perfect. It allowed for slavery. At first, it lacked a Bill of Rights. The Framers argued that the divided and limited powers enumerated in the Constitution were enough to protect our rights. The Anti-Federalists -- opponents of constitutional ratification like Patrick Henry and George Mason -- argued that there ought to be a Bill of Rights and warned that the president and the federal courts would be too powerful.

The Framers were very careful not to give the president or the courts the most dangerous powers that government has, however. They only entrusted the power to declare war and raise taxes to Congress, the branch of government most directly answerable to the people. And after the Constitution was ratified, a Bill of Rights was added that forbids any branch of the federal government to interfere with liberties like our right to free speech, to the free exercise of religion, and to keep and bear arms. These guarantees of freedom brought the Framers and the Anti-Federalists together in support of the Constitution once it was adopted.

Strictly limiting government was a revolutionary idea. What was even more revolutionary was that the Constitution left the most important things in life, like religion and education, free from government control. The Framers knew that no government, no matter how carefully designed, could make people virtuous. That job belongs to families, churches, and communities, not politicians and government schools.

Right from the start, though, politicians were unhappy about the limits the Constitution placed on them. Even Thomas Jefferson, as president, overstepped his constitutional authority by buying the Louisiana territories. Alexander Hamilton succeeded in creating a nation bank, without constitutional authority, to finance government and centralize economic power.

Politicians damaged the Constitution not only by violating its letter but also by ignoring the wisdom that created the Constitution in the first place, creating taxes and tariffs that hurt some parts of the country more than others. Just as freedom brings people together, the opposite of freedom -- tariffs, wars, slavery -- tears a country apart.

Since the Civil War, Washington has done everything that the Framers tried to prevent, from letting the president make wars to interfering in religion and federalizing education. But the people still want freedom. They want a revolution to return to the Constitution.

Young Americans for Liberty (www.yaliberty.org) is leading the way by educating young people about their rights and demanding that politicians obey the Constitution. That is what YAL means by "winning on principle." Our principles are expressed in the Constitution, so read it carefully and commit its lessons to heart."

Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul

[LibertyEagle]

Right, so then you should maybe stop wasting your/others time by trying to argue against those who are holding the BANNER HIGH OF A TRUE LIBERTY {END GOAL}, which is also incidentally Ron Paul's.

That'd make sense, no? Then go tell your 'pals' newbitech.

Here you go again with your bullshit.

Ron Paul is trying to reinstate the Constitution and believes it should be followed. Someday, in la la land, when people become perfect creatures, perhaps it will be possible to go further. But, right now and for the foreseeable future, the goal is to get our government back within the constraints of the Constitution. Because doing so, will drastically reduce the size and scope of government and give us our liberty back.