Which is best? Federalism or Anti-Federalism?

[John F Kennedy III]

I came across an old thread recently that was discussing Federalists vs Anti Federalists. It got me thinking.

Question #1: What do you think our end goal (or at least loooong term goal) for our movement should be? Should we feel content with fully restoring the Constitution (Federalism) or should we go all the way to Anti-Federalism?

I admittedly do not know much about this subject so feel free to teach me a little about the pros/cons of each as well as give your opinions. I once was a liberal/statist, as many of you were, so the concept of what our society and individual lives would be like under a fully restored Constitution is still fairly new to me. I have come a long way the past few years, especially the past year. I feel I am ready to go even further and start advocating Anti-Federalism if I feel it is indeed the best route.

Question #2: So that is another question I have for you, what would the United States look like in an Anti-Federalist system?

Perhaps those with enough knowledge can even attempt to explain how our Constitution, or at least the Bill of Rights and Amendments would be under an Anti-Federalist system.

[heavenlyboy34]

Anti-Federalism. I have no way of knowing how to answer #2, except that it would be a lot freer. There wouldn't be a Constitution (hence the name Anti-Federalist). There would be an AoC or something like it.

[brushfire]

"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it"

[GeorgiaAvenger]

It seems like the term federalism is used today to emphasize removing power from the federal government.

[Travlyr]

The Articles of Confederation have no authority. Ron Paul advocates to obey the Constitution. Since all elected officials swear the oath to support it, then that is our best chance to limit government. Simply enforce Article VI. Right now they swear the oath and then ignore it. If we could get a critical mass of people to force lawmakers to obey their oath of office or take them out of office, then the Constitution could be amended to suit the needs of the people. Ending the Fed is the first step. That can be done by getting candidates to sign affidavits promising to audit the Fed and letting them know that the Fox is no longer guarding the hen house. They swear the oath and they must live up to their word or leave office.

[John F Kennedy III]

Anti-Federalism. I have no way of knowing how to answer #2, except that it would be a lot freer. There wouldn't be a Constitution (hence the name Anti-Federalist). There would be an AoC or something like it.

Thanks. Hopefully some other member will be able to :)

[kuckfeynes]

In an anti-federalist's scenario, it would be up to each individual state to establish rights. Which is what scares a lot of people because they instantly think slavery in the South, even though slavery was codified in legislation in the first place. It is true that an exceptionally tyrannical state could hypothetically make things worse for its citizens than the federal government has for the union overall. (Which is also why anti-fed is really just the last stop on the train to an-cap.) But you can have a lot more direct influence over a governor and state assembly than a president and congress, which makes that unlikely. As long as it's possible to freely cross state borders, all states would be in competition with one another, creating a "free market" if you will between them.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Articles of Confederation have no authority. Ron Paul advocates to obey the Constitution. Since all elected officials swear the oath to support it, then that is our best chance to limit government. Simply enforce Article VI. Right now they swear the oath and then ignore it. If we could get a critical mass of people to force lawmakers to obey their oath of office or take them out of office, then the Constitution could be amended to suit the needs of the people. Ending the Fed is the first step. That can be done by getting candidates to sign affidavits promising to audit the Fed and letting them know that the Fox is no longer guarding the hen house. They swear the oath and they must live up to their word or leave office.Okay, but why are you writing this in this thread? Derailing?:confused:

[TheTexan]

The Articles of Confederation have no authority. Ron Paul advocates to obey the Constitution. Since all elected officials swear the oath to support it, then that is our best chance to limit government. Simply enforce Article VI. Right now they swear the oath and then ignore it. If we could get a critical mass of people to force lawmakers to obey their oath of office or take them out of office, then the Constitution could be amended to suit the needs of the people. Ending the Fed is the first step. That can be done by getting candidates to sign affidavits promising to audit the Fed and letting them know that the Fox is no longer guarding the hen house. They swear the oath and they must live up to their word or leave office.

You're basically saying you can enforce the Constitution by enforcing a part of the Constitution.

Only slightly circular in reasoning :/

[Prairie Chuck]

You're basically saying you can enforce the Constitution by enforcing a part of the Constitution.

Only slightly circular in reasoning :/

No, I think he means that it's not Federalism OR Anti-Federalism that assures we are free, but the PEOPLE enforcing their founding document. (At least it's what I would say)

[Travlyr]

You're basically saying you can enforce the Constitution by enforcing a part of the Constitution.

Only slightly circular in reasoning :/
That is our duty. That is what Ron Paul is teaching. Get involved or live with what you got. Your choice. Obey the Constitution and then amend it or let the paper money people run your life. Your choice.

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.

[Anti Federalist]

Let the Anti Federalist papers serve as a cautionary tale at this point.

Pretty much everything that they warned about has come to pass.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Okay, but why are you writing this in this thread? Derailing?:confused:

Was that a shot at me?

[John F Kennedy III]

That is our duty. That is what Ron Paul is teaching. Get involved or live with what you got. Your choice. Obey the Constitution and then amend it or let the paper money people run your life. Your choice.

Yes but the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not we should take it to the next level (Anti-Fed). I understand what you are saying and I agree with you. But why stop at simply enforcing the Constitution if we have the power yo make our lives even better, even indeed going Anti-Fed would accomplish this.

[John F Kennedy III]

Let the Anti Federalist papers serve as a cautionary tale at this point.

Pretty much everything that they warned about has come to pass.

What would be the best source for me to learn about Anti-Federalism? The Anti Federalist papers?

[heavenlyboy34]

What would be the best source for me to learn about Anti-Federalism? The Anti Federalist papers?
The Anti-Federalist papers, IMHO. Biographies of well-known anti-federalists can be useful as well. Patrick Henry's stuff is awesome IMO.

[John F Kennedy III]

Was that a shot at me?

Can't get anything by you :p

[Travlyr]

The Articles of Confederation were weak. They were overthrown within a decade. Amending the Constitution with the goal of achieving an anti-fed governing document seems like a better strategy because many people actually believe the Constitution is still being followed today. To reinstate the Articles after 230 years is quite a bit bigger challenge.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Federalists = Broad Constructionists
Republicans = Strict Constructionists

Historically speaking.

Ron Paul = Strict Constructionist

[John F Kennedy III]

The Anti-Federalist papers, IMHO. Biographies of well-known anti-federalists can be useful as well. Patrick Henry's stuff is awesome IMO.

Thanks. Can you recommend any specific biographies?

[heavenlyboy34]

The Articles of Confederation were weak. They were overthrown within a decade. Amending the Constitution with the goal of achieving an anti-fed governing document seems like a better strategy because many people actually believe the Constitution is still being followed today. To reinstate the Articles after 230 years is quite a bit bigger challenge.

The AoC made the central government weak, yes. They weren't "overthrown", unless you consider the Constitutional convention a coup (which is the proper way to look at it). The AoC only needed a few modifications in practice. In scrapping the AoC, the idea of individual and States' rights were largely lost in favor of a corporate form (the Constitution is a corporate charter in theory and practice). If it weren't for the Anti-Federalists, you wouldn't have a Bill Of Rights to claim the FedGov is violating when they do xyz, you know. Pure Federalism=tyranny. A road to fascism. (It took less than a century for the Constitution to break down into fascism round about the Lincoln regime)

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks. Can you recommend any specific biographies? Not right off, sorry. But a good copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers usually contains biographical sketches of the authors.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I'd take either over the tyranny we have now, but I would side with the anti-federalists because power needs to be decentralized as much as humanly possible

[RonPaulMall]

I had a professor in college who assigned us the Anti-Federalist papers as reading material. There is a reason they are not part of the curriculum at government schools. The country we live in today is the country the Anti-Federalists argued way back then that the Constitution would inevitably lead to. They were right about everything, only getting a few details of the exact method the Federal Government would use to amass power wrong. That's one think I definitely disagree with Ron Paul about. The Constitution wasn't subverted. Everything that has happened was predicted by the leading opponents of the Constitution over two centuries ago. The document itself is flawed. Although in fairness, I suspect Paul is a closet anarcho-capitalist who only espouses Constitutionalism because getting elected on anything more extreme than that is currently just not within the realm of possibility.

[Travlyr]

The Constitution was indeed subverted with paper money (unconstitutional) and standing armies (unconstitutional) replaced state militias.

[John F Kennedy III]

Not right off, sorry. But a good copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers usually contains biographical sketches of the authors.

Thank you. That shall suffice.

[AGRP]

Anti-Federalist Papers: http://www.thenorthwestreport.com/the-anti-federalist-papers/

[green73]

Let the Anti Federalist papers serve as a cautionary tale at this point.

Pretty much everything that they warned about has come to pass.


What would be the best source for me to learn about Anti-Federalism? The Anti Federalist papers?

The Antifederalists Were Right!
http://mises.org/daily/2335

[John F Kennedy III]

Thanks guys. I think it's clear Anti-Federalism wins :)

[Jingles]

AntiStatism.

[kuckfeynes]

Although in fairness, I suspect Paul is a closet anarcho-capitalist who only espouses Constitutionalism because getting elected on anything more extreme than that is currently just not within the realm of possibility.

LOL, I suspect you are right, and I also suspect this is a large part of what fuels the fervency of his supporters like no one else before or since.

Careful though, them's fighting words to a lot of the "mainstreamers" around here... People seem to think it's a coincidence that he was so close with Rothbard and Rockwell in the 80s. :rolleyes:

[pcgame]

..

[Gumba of Liberty]

Ok so I take it everyone here likes the New Jersey plan as opposed to the Virginia plan or our current Constitution which is mostly based off the Virginia plan?

what about the Confederate Constitution (Southern States)? How does that Constitution compare to the New Jersey Plan? Better or worse?

The Confederate Constitution was a close brother of U.S. Constitution with a few changes (codifying slavery by name, limiting the subject of bills, etc.). I would have supported the New Jersey Plan over the Virginia Plan but I think we are losing sight of the larger point of what our goal should be. Our goal should not be to go back to some form of government like the Articles of Confederation which, by the way, were weak only in their ability to do their duty. Under the Articles, congress was given three specific powers: Declare War, Set Weights and Measures, and Settle Disputes between the States. The congress showed though a series of events (Shays Rebellion, The Collapse of the Continental Dollar, and the Virginia-Maryland Tariff dispute) that they were unable to perform even the most basic functions of their duty and therefore I understand the need for improvements. But back to my main point.

I do not want to "improve" the central government. It has proven to be beyond the point of no return. The central government of the United States is a bankrupt corporatist monstrosity that will inevitably fail. The best thing we could do is shield our States, communities, and families from their power. I believe if we can win any battle that will have a lasting effect on humanity it is to humanize and legitimize the ideas of secession and nullification. If States were allowed to secede from the Feds, the Counties from the States, the towns from the counties, the neighborhoods from the towns, and the individual landowner from all, we might finally see what really freedom is all about. I am not interested in setting up new governments, I would rather remove their monopoly and watch them fail on their own.

[John F Kennedy III]

LOL, I suspect you are right, and I also suspect this is a large part of what fuels the fervency of his supporters like no one else before or since.

Careful though, them's fighting words to a lot of the "mainstreamers" around here... People seem to think it's a coincidence that he was so close with Rothbard and Rockwell in the 80s. :rolleyes:

:D

[NewRightLibertarian]

LOL, I suspect you are right, and I also suspect this is a large part of what fuels the fervency of his supporters like no one else before or since.

Careful though, them's fighting words to a lot of the "mainstreamers" around here... People seem to think it's a coincidence that he was so close with Rothbard and Rockwell in the 80s. :rolleyes:

Rockwell is still one of his top cronies. Whether he's a full on anarcho-capitalist or not, he definitely is familiar with the ideas and espouses a lot of them.