Were The Founders "Statists" or "Anarchists"?

[HVACTech]

Wait wait wait...I thought it was just a "federation"?

@ HVACTech

I have very bad news for you anti-federalist... there are different types of "federations"
worse yet, they are all formed with very different intents and purposes. (sorta like HVAC/R)

were you aware of this sir, when you chose your moniker?

[HVACTech]

Wait wait wait...I thought it was just a "federation"?

@ HVACTech

Full Definition of confederation

1
: an act of confederating : a state of being confederated : alliance

2
: league

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confederation

[Anti Federalist]

Full Definition of federation

1
: an encompassing political or societal entity formed by uniting smaller or more localized entities: as a : a federal government b : a union of organizations

2
: the act of creating or becoming a federation; especially : the forming of a federal union

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/federation

So it does create a government.

You been denying that for months now.

[HVACTech]

So it does create a government.

You been denying that for months now.

@HVACTech I have very bad news for you anti-federalist... there are different types of "federations"
worse yet, they are all formed with very different intents and purposes. (sorta like HVAC/R)

do you have a specific federation in mind anti-federalist?

or do we still need to continue discussing what they are?

[erowe1]

@HVACTech I have very bad news for you anti-federalist... there are different types of "federations"
worse yet, they are all formed with very different intents and purposes. (sorta like HVAC/R)

But clearly the kind the US Constitution created is the government kind, right? Seeing as how it has legislative, executive, and judicial branches and authorizes them to govern people.

[Anti Federalist]

@HVACTech I have very bad news for you anti-federalist... there are different types of "federations"
worse yet, they are all formed with very different intents and purposes. (sorta like HVAC/R)

do you have a specific federation in mind anti-federalist?

or do we still need to continue discussing what they are?

A federation of states, created a government, that has run amok and essentially enslaved us all, with a King/Dictator at the helm.

Just like the anti feds said would happen under the CONstitution.

Hmmm...nope, nothing much more needs to be said.

Carry on.

[heavenlyboy34]

A federation of states, created a government, that has run amok and essentially enslaved us all, with a King/Dictator at the helm.

Just like the anti feds said would happen under the CONstitution.

Hmmm...nope, nothing much more needs to be said.

Carry on.

Thread winnar.

[HVACTech]

But clearly the kind the US Constitution created is the government kind, right? Seeing as how it has legislative, executive, and judicial branches and authorizes them to govern people.

which "version" are we talking about sir?

think of it this way... "windows 95" was the very first "version" of "windows". can we agree on this sir?
and then "modifiers" were employed.. get it?

as a fellow engineer, (and you have a degree) [B @erowe1 the kind the US Constitution created is the government kind[/B]

is your query past tense, or pretense?

what does... @erowe1 the government kind, mean sir? if it means "and authorizes them to govern the people."
then you have extended the conversation beyond the 1791 version. sir

[erowe1]

which "version" are we talking about sir?

Every version.

Also, could you please stop quoting me and mentioning me in the same post? Thanks.

Also, please stop using your senseless melange of italics and bold typefaces.

then you have extended the conversation beyond the 1791 version. sir

No I haven't. See Article I, Section 8. See also the supremacy clause.

[HVACTech]

Thread winnar.

does this mean that you do not support a Monarchy sir?

and despise a @Anti Federalist a King/Dictator at the helm.

[HVACTech]

Every version.

Also, could you please stop quoting me and mentioning me in the same post? Thanks.

Also, please stop using your senseless melange of italics and bold typefaces.



No I haven't. See Article I, Section 8. See also the supremacy clause.

don't like that eh?

what are you talking about again?

[erowe1]

don't like that eh?

what are you talking about again?

Thank you, this is much better.

[HVACTech]

Every version.

Also, could you please stop quoting me and mentioning me in the same post? Thanks.

Also, please stop using your senseless melange of italics and bold typefaces.



No I haven't. See Article I, Section 8. See also the supremacy clause.

"Every version" of what? pizza?

"source"? LOL!

[robert68]

Countries have always acquired land by treaty, and there's nothing in the Constitution to indicate the United States was to be any different in this respect. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution contemplates that the federal government can have territories, and it's hardly a stretch to argue that these can be acquired by treaty. Madison believed the purchase was clearly constitutional.

Article IV, Section 3 only mentions territories "belonging to the United States":

...
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States or of any particular state.

Madison proved his selective regard for legalities with his strong advocacy for the extralegal adoption of the US Constitution and his record as President.

[erowe1]

"Every version" of what?

That was an answer to the question you asked, which I quoted in that post.

[HVACTech]

That was an answer to the question you asked, which I quoted in that post.

about the different "versions" of windows" ?

what "problem" do YOU have with windows sir?

WHY do you NOT like fresh air? is it bad for you?

[erowe1]

about the different "versions" of windows" ?

what "problem" do YOU have with windows sir?

WHY do you NOT like fresh air? is it bad for you?

I get it. You concede the point that from its earliest version the US Constitution always instituted a government. No need to hem and haw about it.

[Sonny Tufts]

Article IV, Section 3 only mentions territories "belonging to the United States"

Right. But it doesn't contain any limitation on how the territories could be acquired.

Madison proved his selective regard for legalities with his strong advocacy for the extralegal adoption of the US Constitution

What was extralegal about it?

[robert68]

Right. But it doesn't contain any limitation on how the territories could be acquired.

>>

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

---------

What was extralegal about it?

>>

Articles of Confederation
XIII.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

vs.

U.S. Constitution
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

[Ronin Truth]

>>


---------


>>
vs.

+Rep!

[Sonny Tufts]

The Constitution was ratified by all of the original 13 States by May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island ratified. No State objected between the date Congress declared the Constitution in effect (March 4, 1789) and RI's ratification. No harm, no foul.

[Ronin Truth]

The Constitution was ratified by all of the original 13 States by May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island ratified. No State objected between the date Congress declared the Constitution in effect (March 4, 1789) and RI's ratification. No harm, no foul.

The "states" did no such thing. Read Article VII of the CONstitution.

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

[HVACTech]

The "states" did no such thing. Read Article VII of the CONstitution.

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwel

"We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on"


uh, no. it was ratified in 1789. "tacked on" is right. that happened in LATE 1791.
that it has been corrupted in OBVIOUS.
@Ronin Truth The "states" did no such thing. Read Article VII of the CONstitution.


will that give me confirmation of the ratification dates? no, it will not. what "such thing" are you talking about?

[r3volution 3.0]

The founders were clearly minarchists, not anarchists.

Now, in a way, this is unfair, since the concept of anarcho-capitalism wasn't around at the time.

...though, had they been aware of it, they would have had the sense to reject it.

Murray Rothbard (R.I.P.) pretty much invented it in the 1960's.

As an historical sidenote, Gustave de Molinari, a Belgian fellow, actually invented the concept of market anarchism in the 19th century.

Suffice it to say, he was a better economist than political scientist.

His economics (of the French Liberal School) was sound, his anarchist politics less so.

Course, one could say the same about our dearly departed Rothbard.

P.S. A good lecture on the history of the French Liberal School and its relation to Austrian Economics

https://mises.org/library/austrian-s...mporary-theory

[HVACTech]

A federation of states, created a government, that has run amok and essentially enslaved us all, with a King/Dictator at the helm.

Just like the anti feds said would happen under the CONstitution.

Hmmm...nope, nothing much more needs to be said.

Carry on.

@Anti Federalist. A federation of states, created a government, and then it was corrupted?

or was it corrupt from the very start, by it's creators... so they could become kings?

[HVACTech]

The founders were clearly minarchists, not anarchists.

Now, in a way, this is unfair, since the concept of anarcho-capitalism wasn't around at the time.

...though, had they been aware of it, they would have had the sense to reject it.

the concept of anarcho-capitalism, is too easy to understand. to think that they were unaware of it sir.
these men were not pikers.

I think of it this way... what would happen, if anarchists decided to work together, to ward off the Statists?
how would we go about it.. and what would it look like?

the peoples proclivity to create "states" is well known. and needs to be accounted for sir.

[Anti Federalist]

@Anti Federalist. A federation of states, created a government, and then it was corrupted?

or was it corrupt from the very start, by it's creators... so they could become kings?

That "@ so and so" makes an annoying message alert...please cut it out.

Certainly there were some unrepentant monarchists among the crowd in Philadelphia, but I don't think their arguments carried any weight.

I think it was flawed from the get go, in that it in granted the new central government essentially unlimited power.

[heavenlyboy34]

The "states" did no such thing. Read Article VII of the CONstitution.

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

This^^
During the VA Ratifying Convention Patrick Henry was the most frequent speaker against ratification of the new Constitution. Here, on 4 June, 1788, Mr. Henry first spoke to the delegates and reminded them of Virginia's sovereignty and her membership in a confederation of states. This speech is acted out in my movie "The Spirit of '76 - The Greatest Story Never Told".

4 June, 1788. The Virginia Assembly, Richmond Virginia

Mr. HENRY. Mr. Chairman, the public mind, as well as my own, is extremely uneasy at the proposed change of government. Give me leave to form one of the number of those who wish to be thoroughly acquainted with the reasons of this perilous and uneasy situation, and why we are brought hither to decide on this great national question. I consider myself as the servant of the people of this commonwealth, as a sentinel over their rights, liberty, and happiness. I represent their feelings when I say that they are exceedingly uneasy at being brought from that state of full security, which they enjoyed, to the present delusive appearance of things. A year ago, the minds of our citizens were at perfect repose.Before the meeting of the late federal Convention at Philadelphia, a general peace and a universal tranquillity prevailed in this country; but, since that period, they are exceedingly uneasy and disquieted.

When I wished for an appointment to this Convention, my mind was extremely agitated for the situation of public affairs. I conceived the republic to be in extreme danger. If our situation be thus uneasy, whence has arisen this fearful jeopardy? It arises from this fatal system; it arises from a proposal to change our government — a proposal that goes to the utter annihilation of the most solemn engagements of the states — a proposal of establishing nine states into a confederacy, to the eventual exclusion of four states. It goes to the annihilation of those solemn treaties we have formed with foreign nations.The present circumstances of France — the good offices rendered us by that kingdom — require our most faithful and most punctual adherence to our treaty with her. We are in alliance with the Spaniards, the Dutch, the Prussians; those treaties bound us as thirteen states confederated together. Yet here is a proposal to sever that confederacy. Is it possible that we shall abandon all our treaties and national engagements? — and for what? I expected to hear the reasons for an event so unexpected to my mind and many others. Was our civil polity, or public justice, endangered or sapped? Was the real existence of the country threatened, or was this preceded by a mournful progression of events? This proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature! Make the best of this new government — say it is composed by any thing but inspiration — you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost. It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us.

If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking. I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.

I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them — a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor, I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information. The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation.

The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation, and what are the causes of this proposal to change our government.[/QUOTE]

[erowe1]

The founders were clearly minarchists, not anarchists.

Statists, yes. But minarchists? Why do you say they were clearly minarchists?

[erowe1]

the peoples proclivity to create "states" is well known. and needs to be accounted for sir.

This is news to me. What are you talking about?

Or do you just mean the general proclivity of human beings to commit crimes against one another? If that's what you mean, then I agree.