|
Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.
Oh Houston, we know you're from Texas. We know you don't horns.
You don't have to be jealous because DC is more fabulous than Texas.
The whole point was to ensure that Wyoming and California as states were represented equally.
The problem in a sentence. Wyoming and California as states deserve absolutely zero representation, zero say, and zero consideration. They are not people, only dirt. The choice between empowering people or empowering inanimate objects is obvious. The founders screwed that pooch and we've been paying the price for it in bad government ever since, just like we're still paying for their protection of slavery and its long legacy.
|
|
The whole point was to ensure that Wyoming and California as states were represented equally.The problem in a sentence. Wyoming and California as states deserve absolutely zero representation, zero say, and zero consideration. They are not people, only dirt. The choice between empowering people or empowering inanimate objects is obvious. The founders screwed that pooch and we've been paying the price for it in bad government ever since, just like we're still paying for their protection of slavery and its long legacy.
America had slaves? When did this happen?
|
Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.
Oh Houston, we know you're from Texas. We know you don't horns.
You don't have to be jealous because DC is more fabulous than Texas.
"More fabulous?" We elected an openly lesbian mayor. They elected a crackhead. I think we win "fabulous" hands down.
"More fabulous?" We elected an openly lesbian mayor. They elected a crackhead. I think we win "fabulous" hands down.Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.
Oh Houston, we know you're from Texas. We know you don't horns.
You don't have to be jealous because DC is more fabulous than Texas.
Texas doesn't have a mayor it has a governor!
|
|
Texas doesn't have a mayor it has a governor!"More fabulous?" We elected an openly lesbian mayor. They elected a crackhead. I think we win "fabulous" hands down.Considering the D.C. crime rates, I didn't think anyone there was eligible to vote anyway...<sarcasm>Yes, all 600,000 residents of the district are convicted felons. Every single one of us.</sarcasm>
Shall I now start making snide remarks about how everyone from Texas is an uneducated redneck?
(Which I wouldn't do even if I believed it were true. Insulting people categorically for no good reason is rarely productive in what is theoretically a civil discussion.)
Lighten up. Seriously. But, really, outside of Georgetown, D.C. may as well be Detroit for livability. The fact y'all elected a convicted crackhead mayor once tells me it's a good thing y'all have no voice in National politics...
D.C. was never meant to be a residential city. Never should have been. They need to separate the Capitol district from the rest of the city and give everything except the District to Maryland.
Oh Houston, we know you're from Texas. We know you don't horns.
You don't have to be jealous because DC is more fabulous than Texas.
And have you seen Perry's hair? Fa-Bu-Lous.
And D.C. isn't a state, I was making a "city to city" comparison. ;-)
|
|
The whole point was to ensure that Wyoming and California as states were represented equally.The problem in a sentence. Wyoming and California as states deserve absolutely zero representation, zero say, and zero consideration. They are not people, only dirt. The choice between empowering people or empowering inanimate objects is obvious. The founders screwed that pooch and we've been paying the price for it in bad government ever since, just like we're still paying for their protection of slavery and its long legacy.
You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution. The bad government that we have right now is based on the federal government's attempts to grab powers that the founding fathers never intended them to have.
The Congress was suposed to have authority over matters that affect all of the states such as international treaties, moneitary policy, defense, and interstate trade. States were supposed to deal with internal matters such as intrastate trade, infrastructure, and yes even social issues such as abortion and minority rights. Right around the middle of the 20th century however, certain elements at the federal level both on the left and the right decided such matters would be better decided by the federal government and started taking those rights that the states had and trampling on them.
In some cases they were good intentioned and morally, such as the use of the National Guard to enforce the Reconstruction ammendments in the Old South and the use of statute to end Jim Crow and othe discriminatory practices. However, in those days the leaders of the civil rights movement and other movements still understood how the heirarchy of power was supposed to work and only appealed to the federal government when they could not get the state governments to address their greviences and right the legal wrongs they were suffering.
The very patchwork of laws that today we hear people fear coming into existance was exactly the point of the American experiement. We were suposed to be 50 semi soverign bodies each with our own framework of laws and statutes so that we could see what laws worked and what laws did not. Then if another state had a law that you thought worked better then the laws of your state you could either move to that state or you could attempt to persuade the citizens and legislature to adopt the rules of that state. We still see that plan at work in our legal system, where a states courts are only bound to follow the precident of that state or the sureme court but may be persuaded to adopt the precident of another state.
Basically the Federal government was supposed to have a role similar but somewhat more powerful that the United Nations. They were supposed to act on behalf of the member states in matters that affect the whole nation such as dealings with other countries, prevent barriers to trade within the member states, and enforce the basic rights that all the member states agreed on. Everything else was supposed to be the pervue of the member states and the Senate was supposed to protect the rights of the member states.
|
|
If I might, this may give more insight into what the founders had in mind with the Senate
The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation.
And here is Federalist #63 in it's fulness. It was written by James Madison who is know as both the "Father of the Constitution" and the "Father of the Bill of Rights."
You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.
I am very well-acquainted with the history of states' rights.
|
|
Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.The only way that is going to happen is if the U.S. gets conquered. But if you want a current example of tyranny of the majority, move to Quebec, open up a store, and try to have the sign in English be the same size as the sign in French. Legally, you can't.
Legally, in the city I work in, you can't change the color scheme of certain buildings labeled "historical". Even if everything from the awnings, to the tint of the glass, to the size of a window decal all must meet certain requirements... even if they're BRAND NEW. Still, we're surrounded by bars full of neon lights that hang in the windows, cardboard cut outs of nearly naked women in windows, and a huge ugly parking garage less than 100ft away.
Some laws just don't make a lick of sense.
Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.The only way that is going to happen is if the U.S. gets conquered.
And? If what's right was always what's easy, everybody would do it.
I do get a kick out of how your example of the horrors of one person, one vote and central government comes in the form of a provincial government's bad behavior. Thanks for making my point for me.
|
|
You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.
How is one person, one vote any better? That has given us Prop. 8 and Jim Crow. Not to mention more then a few nutty and or dangerous dictators around the world, both past and present. Historically speaking federalism has been much harder to manipulate and create dictaorships. Particularly when the ruling party starts changing the definition of a citizen and who has the ability to vote. Look at it in simple terms, one, person one vote gave us Jim Crow Laws. Federalism gave us the Civil Rights Act.
|
|
I do get a kick out of how your example of the horrors of one person, one vote and central government comes in the form of a provincial government's bad behavior. Thanks for making my point for me.
Well don't forget that I tried to explain state's rights as outlined by the founders and the Constitution and your reply was the Ku Klux Klan, which has nothing to do with the founders or their views on state's rights.
Well don't forget that I tried to explain state's rights as outlined by the founders and the Constitution and your reply was the Ku Klux Klan, which has nothing to do with the founders or their views on state's rights.
I do get a kick out of how your example of the horrors of one person, one vote and central government comes in the form of a provincial government's bad behavior. Thanks for making my point for me.
The founders' views on states rights are as obviously wrongheaded as the KKK's. A pile of corpses, however distinguished, does not make one right or even reasonable.
If it can happen on a smaller scale (if we can refer a province with millions of people in it to be small), it can happen on a larger one. Ask the japanese who were interred during WWII if that wasn't a national policy. Or, take a look at the increasing tendency for sex offenders to be zoned out of legally living, well, anywhere. A very popular law in the places it has passed, it has merely caused the people it is trying to protect our children from to vanish completely out of sight. Or take a look at how many states have laws the say gays can't marry? I'm willing to bet that on a national level you could get 51% of the people in the country to agree with it. It doesn't make it right, but that's how it is.
Quite right. I'm not saying that one person, one vote is a magical bullet which will never go wrong. That's what the courts are for fixing, as I've explained before. And in fact, the courts did get on fixing segregation. This is exactly the same instant that the states' right crowd suddenly started caring about their pet issue again.
Look at it in simple terms, one, person one vote gave us Jim Crow Laws. Federalism gave us the Civil Rights Act.
You have your history so wrong it's comical. Jim Crow came about when one person, one vote was suppressed and white supremacists regained control. Federalism preserved segregation and slavery for decades. It was pounding the state governments into the dirt and grinding their faces in it good and long that finally got us the Civil Rights Act, which the states' rights crowd has as one of their main examples of federal tyranny.
|
|
If it can happen on a smaller scale (if we can refer a province with millions of people in it to be small), it can happen on a larger one. Ask the japanese who were interred during WWII if that wasn't a national policy. Or, take a look at the increasing tendency for sex offenders to be zoned out of legally living, well, anywhere. A very popular law in the places it has passed, it has merely caused the people it is trying to protect our children from to vanish completely out of sight. Or take a look at how many states have laws the say gays can't marry? I'm willing to bet that on a national level you could get 51% of the people in the country to agree with it. It doesn't make it right, but that's how it is.Quite right. I'm not saying that one person, one vote is a magical bullet which will never go wrong. That's what the courts are for fixing, as I've explained before. And in fact, the courts did get on fixing segregation. This is exactly the same instant that the states' right crowd suddenly started caring about their pet issue again.
The courts don't always do such a great job as is evidenced by Dred Scott, Plessy Vv. Ferguson, Williams v. Mississippi, Reynolds v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States, and others.
The courts don't always do such a great job as is evidenced by Dred Scott, Plessy Vv. Ferguson, Williams v. Mississippi, Reynolds v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States, and others.
And sometimes they do, and I would list Reynolds v. United States as a sterling example of them doing just that. So is Brown, of course. And Griswold and Roe.
To be honest, I haven't been there since I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir in '89. I guess some gentrification has happened since. It was a complete s!#&hole back then.
Yes, a lot has changed in the city in the last twenty years. And many of the changes are the result of gentrification. But there are an awful lot of neighborhoods here that have rich, diverse, and fascinating histories-- neighborhoods where people have been living for a couple of hundred years in vibrant, friendly communities. It makes me sad that so many people never look beyond fed/tourist land to see what a wonderful place the District is.
Though I wouldn't care nearly so much about that if I had the same right to representation (or alternatively, got a free pass on playing federal taxes) as every other citizen of the U.S. ;)
|
|
To be honest, I haven't been there since I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir in '89. I guess some gentrification has happened since. It was a complete s!#&hole back then.Yes, a lot has changed in the city in the last twenty years. And many of the changes are the result of gentrification. But there are an awful lot of neighborhoods here that have rich, diverse, and fascinating histories-- neighborhoods where people have been living for a couple of hundred years in vibrant, friendly communities. It makes me sad that so many people never look beyond fed/tourist land to see what a wonderful place the District is.
Though I wouldn't care nearly so much about that if I had the same right to representation (or alternatively, got a free pass on playing federal taxes) as every other citizen of the U.S. ;)
Vote for my peeps, we're trying to abolish the Fed Income Tax ;@)
Vote for my peeps, we're trying to abolish the Fed Income Tax ;@)To be honest, I haven't been there since I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir in '89. I guess some gentrification has happened since. It was a complete s!#&hole back then.Yes, a lot has changed in the city in the last twenty years. And many of the changes are the result of gentrification. But there are an awful lot of neighborhoods here that have rich, diverse, and fascinating histories-- neighborhoods where people have been living for a couple of hundred years in vibrant, friendly communities. It makes me sad that so many people never look beyond fed/tourist land to see what a wonderful place the District is.
Though I wouldn't care nearly so much about that if I had the same right to representation (or alternatively, got a free pass on playing federal taxes) as every other citizen of the U.S. ;)
Libertarian, I'm guessing?
No, thank you, as a general rule. I've voted for libertarian candidates before in local and state elections, but I'm not a party line voter. And I find hard-line libertarianism to be... problematic.
But I couldn't support the abolishment of federal taxes even if I WERE more inclined to a libertarian political philosophy than I am. I think taxes are necessary to fund a civilized society, and I rather like public roads, mass transit, public education, and law enforcement, amongst other accoutrements of civilization. :)
The point I was making is not that I don't want to pay taxes. It's that since I DO pay taxes, I think it unjust that I'm not allowed a voice in the representative democracy that I help to fund by virtue of where I live.
|
|
Vote for my peeps, we're trying to abolish the Fed Income Tax ;@)To be honest, I haven't been there since I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir in '89. I guess some gentrification has happened since. It was a complete s!#&hole back then.Yes, a lot has changed in the city in the last twenty years. And many of the changes are the result of gentrification. But there are an awful lot of neighborhoods here that have rich, diverse, and fascinating histories-- neighborhoods where people have been living for a couple of hundred years in vibrant, friendly communities. It makes me sad that so many people never look beyond fed/tourist land to see what a wonderful place the District is.
Though I wouldn't care nearly so much about that if I had the same right to representation (or alternatively, got a free pass on playing federal taxes) as every other citizen of the U.S. ;)
Libertarian, I'm guessing?
No, thank you, as a general rule. I've voted for libertarian candidates before in local and state elections, but I'm not a party line voter. And I find hard-line libertarianism to be... problematic.
But I couldn't support the abolishment of federal taxes even if I WERE more inclined to a libertarian political philosophy than I am. I think taxes are necessary to fund a civilized society, and I rather like public roads, mass transit, public education, and law enforcement, amongst other accoutrements of civilization. :)
The point I was making is not that I don't want to pay taxes. It's that since I DO pay taxes, I think it unjust that I'm not allowed a voice in the representative democracy that I help to fund by virtue of where I live.
Well, they really should just force Maryland to take DC. Or make it the smallest (in area) state and remove the Capitol District.
Or give them two Senators.
|
|
How is one person, one vote any better? That has given us Prop. 8 and Jim Crow. Not to mention more then a few nutty and or dangerous dictators around the world, both past and present. Historically speaking federalism has been much harder to manipulate and create dictaorships. Particularly when the ruling party starts changing the definition of a citizen and who has the ability to vote. Look at it in simple terms, one, person one vote gave us Jim Crow Laws. Federalism gave us the Civil Rights Act.You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.
David,
You do realise it exists in all of Europe and we don't have Jim Crow laws or Prop 8, right? Unless you're claiming America is somehow more intolerant or stupid or bigoted than Eruope (which I don't buy. Your nutters might be louder than our nutters but they're not the majority by any means) then one person, one vote won't destroy America.|
|
We aren't afraid of the bigoted people where I live, we are afraid of the ones who think they are enlightened and want us to live the way they think we should. Nor are we suggesting that we abolish the House of Representatives. Merely that pure majority rule can lead to problems and there should be a counterbalance to it besides judges appointed by a majority. I'm not foolish enough to think that the senate doesn't have problems that need to be fixed, I'm just not willing to include it's very existence as one of those problems. I see far more damage being caused right now by our two party political system than by anything else. A viable third party on the national level would do far more to fix the problems in the U.S. government than getting rid of the Senate.David,
You do realize it exists in all of Europe and we don't have Jim Crow laws or Prop 8, right? Unless you're claiming America is somehow more intolerant or stupid or bigoted than Europe (which I don't buy. Your nutters might be louder than our nutters but they're not the majority by any means) then one person, one vote won't destroy America.
I'm not arguing one way or the other as I'm in the UK and so the finer points of the American governmental set-up isn't my area of expertise. I just objected to the voting system used by all of Europe being painted as some sort of evil that should be opposed at all costs.
|
|
How is one person, one vote any better? That has given us Prop. 8 and Jim Crow. Not to mention more then a few nutty and or dangerous dictators around the world, both past and present. Historically speaking federalism has been much harder to manipulate and create dictaorships. Particularly when the ruling party starts changing the definition of a citizen and who has the ability to vote. Look at it in simple terms, one, person one vote gave us Jim Crow Laws. Federalism gave us the Civil Rights Act.You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.
David,
You do realise it exists in all of Europe and we don't have Jim Crow laws or Prop 8, right? Unless you're claiming America is somehow more intolerant or stupid or bigoted than Eruope (which I don't buy. Your nutters might be louder than our nutters but they're not the majority by any means) then one person, one vote won't destroy America.
Paul, I thought that at least most of Europe used a republican system similar to what we have here in the U.S. with the people electing representatives and then those representatives passing legislation. In fact the U.S. Founding Fathers modeled the U.S. Congress on the British Parlement, just replacing the House of Lords with the Senate. If this is not the case then my Comparitive Government classes were woefully inacurate. When I hear someone talk about one person, one vote what I envision is Athenian democracy where all citizens vote on all legislation. That was what I was refering to with my statements, not a system where people elect representatives with their vote.
|
|
Paul, I thought that at least most of Europe used a republican system similar to what we have here in the U.S. with the people electing representatives and then those representatives passing legislation. In fact the U.S. Founding Fathers modeled the U.S. Congress on the British Parlement, just replacing the House of Lords with the Senate. If this is not the case then my Comparitive Government classes were woefully inacurate. When I hear someone talk about one person, one vote what I envision is Athenian democracy where all citizens vote on all legislation. That was what I was refering to with my statements, not a system where people elect representatives with their vote.How is one person, one vote any better? That has given us Prop. 8 and Jim Crow. Not to mention more then a few nutty and or dangerous dictators around the world, both past and present. Historically speaking federalism has been much harder to manipulate and create dictaorships. Particularly when the ruling party starts changing the definition of a citizen and who has the ability to vote. Look at it in simple terms, one, person one vote gave us Jim Crow Laws. Federalism gave us the Civil Rights Act.You are right, states are not people. However, under our federalist system they do have rights. That is explicitly stated in the Constitution.Yes, that's the problem in a nutshell. Our constitutional structure is faulty from the ground up. The federal system should be eliminated. No non-person deserves rights. To give rights to non-people is to deny them to people.
David,
You do realise it exists in all of Europe and we don't have Jim Crow laws or Prop 8, right? Unless you're claiming America is somehow more intolerant or stupid or bigoted than Eruope (which I don't buy. Your nutters might be louder than our nutters but they're not the majority by any means) then one person, one vote won't destroy America.
Ah, my apologies for the snark then. Over here "one person, one vote" means one person gets one vote for the representatives in Parliament. So your Comparative government class was quite right in that respect.
Ah, my apologies for the snark then. Over here "one person, one vote" means one person gets one vote for the representatives in Parliament. So your Comparative government class was quite right in that respect.
That's the standard meaning of the phrase. What David is fretting over is apparently direct democracy, which nobody I know takes seriously.
Abolish the State.
Anarcho-capitalism for everyone.
Abolish the State. Anarcho-capitalism for everyone.
Because that works so well in central African banana republics.
Abolish the State. Anarcho-capitalism for everyone.Because that works so well in central African banana republics.
I'm pretty sure the problem in central Africa has a lot more to do with institutional violence than with a well-functioning capitalist economy hostile to State action.
In fact the U.S. Founding Fathers modeled the U.S. Congress on the British Parlement, just replacing the House of Lords with the Senate. If this is not the case then my Comparitive Government classes were woefully inacurate.
It would be a very strange thing, if six Nations of ignorant savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such a Union … and yet that a like union should be impracticable for ten or a Dozen English Colonies.
In the last few decades, some historians have stressed "The Iroquois Influence Thesis" in relation to the development of the Articles of Confederation or United States Constitution. Consensus has not been reached on how influential the Iroquois model was to the development of the United States' documents. The Influence Thesis became popular in the 1980s, particularly through works by the historians Donald Grinde and Bruce Johansen. They believed that the democratic ideals of the Great Law of Peace provided a significant inspiration to Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and other framers of the United States Constitution. The standing of the Influence Thesis was demonstrated by the United States Congress' passing a resolution in October 1988 that specifically recognized the influence of the Iroquois League upon the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
[I'm pretty sure the problem in central Africa has a lot more to do with institutional violence
Certainly that's a large part of it. In a number of cases, though, some of what we're seeing is the inevitable violence that comes from a total power vacuum (no State at all).
Minarchy I can get behind. Anarchy is savagery given a prettier name.
Minarchy I can get behind.
If you can agree that every other function of Government is done better by the private sector, then why not violence as well? Why do you think that individuals are incapable of interacting civilly in the absence of a central coercive authority?
If you can agree that every other function of Government is done better by the private sector, then why not violence as well? Why do you think that individuals are incapable of interacting civilly in the absence of a central coercive authority?
Obviously you've never met my neighbors.
If you can agree that every other function of Government is done better by the private sector, then why not violence as well? Why do you think that individuals are incapable of interacting civilly in the absence of a central coercive authority?Obviously you've never met my neighbors.
I'd much rather trust the state, even a really bad state, with violence than my relatives. Privatized violence doesn't seem to be doing that well in Somalia either, so I don't think it's just that my relatives are violent psychopaths.
I'd much rather trust the state, even a really bad state, with violence than my relatives.
Why are those the only alternatives? Why not a private adjudicating group that everyone in your community trusts?
[Why are those the only alternatives? Why not a private adjudicating group that everyone in your community trusts?
That group is called a State. Your idea of one is at the communuity level, but there's no mechanism then other than mutual hostility to keep it from expanding -- otherwise, my private adjudicating group starts getting money from other groups from elsewhere to support certain policies, and pretty soon we have a consortium of groups...