Let us not forget that the United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic whose dysfunction may be ascribed in large part to a systematic setting aside of the blueprint.
We should roll the federal government back to 1820, return power to the states, and see what that does before quibbling about whether or not the model we were given works as intended.
Yessir. Huzzah for this! My only quibble would be that the model should not allow for "a systematic setting aside of the blueprint." Yet somehow, the progressive era, the New Deal, the World Wars, and the rise of the welfare/warfare state didn't happen in a vacuum. So how, pray tell, do we roll it back? Surely the answer isn't *Vote harder!* If a roll-back to federalism is the end, what are the means? And are those means meant to be constitutional or not? I ask this in all earnestness, because the answers are what we have to leave to our kids.
As proposed legislation in Congress, the bill could be described in five sentences. Let us not hold our breaths in anticipation. Our lawmakers are corrupt on both sides of the aisle. They will never give up power.
The other part "of getting back to roots " is to limit the voting rights. To the people with a stake and shouldering responsibility for the future. Not to the mob and animal spirits
He might've been more open about it than we realize. One good source on this (while also being immensely amusing) is Woods' argument in the Woods-Malice Hamilton debate here:
And they don't even get into the really shady stuff Hamilton did, like screwing over veterans and farmers to enrich his already-rich buddies, and then using their reaction to being screwed over as an excuse to scuttle the Articles of Confederation. Bad bad stuff.
"But the saving grace of democracy is not that it ensures either good or limited government; it is nothing more than that the system allows for political change without violence"
—I wonder if it would be quite as peaceful if more people understood what democracy actually is and how it is actually working…as opposed to the illusion we've been spoon-fed.
Voting is truly a spectacle which is only valuable as entertainment.
Another flaw of majority voting is that it's not even a majority that win just a majority of those who show up to vote. In a group of 10, three people would out vote one if only those four voted. And in that case not 75% but just 30% of the voters would decide for all. In fact in the extreme if just one person showed up they would get their way no matter how large the pool of voters.
The "voter" who is often overlooked and generally derided is the implicit NO voter who chooses not to vote. But that may well be the most authentic voter. And I contend there are vastly more principled no shows than the politicos want to admit to. It's not laziness that keeps people away, it's disgust. If being a voter meant anything, then the many many no show "voters" would be counted and the first hurdle of a candidate or proposition would be to inspire a majority to show up at the polls. And to win they would have to outnumber the over's voters but also the not-for-anyone voters who stayed home.
The people who do not vote are not generally doing so out of principled rejection of bad choices. They are too lazy to vote in primaries (when you may have a real choice)., or to engage in any other part of the available process.
If 30% were truly principled, they would engage elsewhere and have their opinions known.
Historians like Alexander Tytler studied the various democracies throughout history and saw that creating dependency was the last stage of any democracy before Tyranny. History has shown us that no democracy lasts:
This makes perfect sense b/c the government that gives us everything is the government that can take it all away. So, I would think the first step is to get the federal government from creating dependency.
Thomas Jefferson gave us his permission to amend the constitution as we see fit, and we are well past overdue.
What if we could amend the Constitution to reflect the intent of the Articles of the Confederation (which had term limits!!) and was intended to limit a central government, which as we know now that the three branches that was supposed to balance the powers and protect us has failed tremendously.
And, the argument from the ancaps would be – ‘dummy – it’s still democracy – and it will become corrupt.’ Yeah, ok, but give us a better plan. I’m all ears.
I think we could amend Article II and replace it with a diplomatic post – like a Secretary of State that strips the Executive Office Bigly, and is intended to communicate internationally, have no standing army, but delegate that to each state militia and completely get rid of Article III – “a ball of wax” and replace with a 50 state tribunal system - which would be in the AOC type Congress.
Or, better yet, let the states elect the delegates (Congress ala Articles of Confederation) and let the states elect the diplomatic post to replace the Executive so there is another layer of protection from direct democracy and we then eliminate all federal elections by the people.
So, essentially, let the states figure out how they want to “take” care of the people with no federal funds from the feds.
Let us not forget that the United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic whose dysfunction may be ascribed in large part to a systematic setting aside of the blueprint.
We should roll the federal government back to 1820, return power to the states, and see what that does before quibbling about whether or not the model we were given works as intended.
Yessir. Huzzah for this! My only quibble would be that the model should not allow for "a systematic setting aside of the blueprint." Yet somehow, the progressive era, the New Deal, the World Wars, and the rise of the welfare/warfare state didn't happen in a vacuum. So how, pray tell, do we roll it back? Surely the answer isn't *Vote harder!* If a roll-back to federalism is the end, what are the means? And are those means meant to be constitutional or not? I ask this in all earnestness, because the answers are what we have to leave to our kids.
As proposed legislation in Congress, the bill could be described in five sentences. Let us not hold our breaths in anticipation. Our lawmakers are corrupt on both sides of the aisle. They will never give up power.
No doubt. Which means we have to do better.... to find another way(s)
The other part "of getting back to roots " is to limit the voting rights. To the people with a stake and shouldering responsibility for the future. Not to the mob and animal spirits
I agree. A voter should have skin in the game.
I fear that it is working precisely as Hamilton intended it.
If so, the man was subversive.
He might've been more open about it than we realize. One good source on this (while also being immensely amusing) is Woods' argument in the Woods-Malice Hamilton debate here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeE_s1Gw7X4
Lots to think about in this one. Thanks for the referral.
And they don't even get into the really shady stuff Hamilton did, like screwing over veterans and farmers to enrich his already-rich buddies, and then using their reaction to being screwed over as an excuse to scuttle the Articles of Confederation. Bad bad stuff.
What a stinker!
"But the saving grace of democracy is not that it ensures either good or limited government; it is nothing more than that the system allows for political change without violence"
—I wonder if it would be quite as peaceful if more people understood what democracy actually is and how it is actually working…as opposed to the illusion we've been spoon-fed.
Voting is truly a spectacle which is only valuable as entertainment.
Another flaw of majority voting is that it's not even a majority that win just a majority of those who show up to vote. In a group of 10, three people would out vote one if only those four voted. And in that case not 75% but just 30% of the voters would decide for all. In fact in the extreme if just one person showed up they would get their way no matter how large the pool of voters.
The "voter" who is often overlooked and generally derided is the implicit NO voter who chooses not to vote. But that may well be the most authentic voter. And I contend there are vastly more principled no shows than the politicos want to admit to. It's not laziness that keeps people away, it's disgust. If being a voter meant anything, then the many many no show "voters" would be counted and the first hurdle of a candidate or proposition would be to inspire a majority to show up at the polls. And to win they would have to outnumber the over's voters but also the not-for-anyone voters who stayed home.
The people who do not vote are not generally doing so out of principled rejection of bad choices. They are too lazy to vote in primaries (when you may have a real choice)., or to engage in any other part of the available process.
If 30% were truly principled, they would engage elsewhere and have their opinions known.
And voting in local elections is way more impactful and relevant than the national spectacle.
100%
Historians like Alexander Tytler studied the various democracies throughout history and saw that creating dependency was the last stage of any democracy before Tyranny. History has shown us that no democracy lasts:
https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/history-tells-us-that-democracies?r=76q58
This makes perfect sense b/c the government that gives us everything is the government that can take it all away. So, I would think the first step is to get the federal government from creating dependency.
Thomas Jefferson gave us his permission to amend the constitution as we see fit, and we are well past overdue.
What if we could amend the Constitution to reflect the intent of the Articles of the Confederation (which had term limits!!) and was intended to limit a central government, which as we know now that the three branches that was supposed to balance the powers and protect us has failed tremendously.
And, the argument from the ancaps would be – ‘dummy – it’s still democracy – and it will become corrupt.’ Yeah, ok, but give us a better plan. I’m all ears.
I think we could amend Article II and replace it with a diplomatic post – like a Secretary of State that strips the Executive Office Bigly, and is intended to communicate internationally, have no standing army, but delegate that to each state militia and completely get rid of Article III – “a ball of wax” and replace with a 50 state tribunal system - which would be in the AOC type Congress.
Or, better yet, let the states elect the delegates (Congress ala Articles of Confederation) and let the states elect the diplomatic post to replace the Executive so there is another layer of protection from direct democracy and we then eliminate all federal elections by the people.
So, essentially, let the states figure out how they want to “take” care of the people with no federal funds from the feds.
Just throwing some ideas out there. Here’s a modest proposal: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/a-modest-proposal-part-iv-amending?r=76q58