All of these support the ideas of the founding fathers.

This is not something that we have "learned" since then, it is wrong and directly antithetical to the ideas of federalism. Direct democracy is a form of tyranny. The majority can do whatever it wants to anyone. You go from direct democracy directly to dictatorship, just as Plato and the founding fathers recognized. There must be direct limits on the direct influence of the highly volatile masses in order to preserve life, liberty, and property for everyone. THAT is an idea that should be supported, direct democracy is not.

At what point do the rights of a locality become subject to those far removed from them and with entirely different interests?

You don't follow quotes, you follow ideology. That is easily found, read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

It doesn't matter that some people called the founding fathers came up with the ideas of federalism, it is the ideas that matter.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Yeah your right, Heck, lets just scrap the constitution (it was written 8,000 years ago or whenever) and use Karl Marx's new government for dummies.

No they dont. If they did then the founding fathers wouldnt have owned any slaves, would have illegalized slavery and given the right to vote to women and blacks. They didnt and some owned slaves as well.


Not by a long shot. You dont have to have "mob rule" because you have direct democracy. You still have a framework of human rights, individual rights etc that are not to be violated.

The idea that direct democracy is "tyranny" is nonsense and a good way to convince people to allow a small group to control their lives....thats actually the REAL tyranny.

Obviously there are many who take a different position, but the idea that a small superior group who are "superior to the rest of the unwashed masses" is definitely a thing of the past...such contempt for all of us by those who rule is no longer an idea thats supported but instead we have started to shift to the idea that we SHOULD run our own lives and those in public office are SERVANTS, not lords.

The founding fathers just came up with a new "monarchy" in the republic.

If the people within you own nation are too far removed, then maybe its best to not be a nation with them...you make it sound as if its a form of imperialism.

You can be as a nation and micro-manage on smaller levels to the needs of the people there and each area will have different needs from the next but there should be consistency in laws and policy. A marriage recognized in one state but not another, court rulings only standing in one state but not another etc all make life difficult for those trying to move within their own nation.

No rights are removed, rights are simply consistent no matter where you are in the nation...you simply dont have the right to make up your own laws as if you are a seperate nation from the rest. We have grown past such a thing.


Firstly, quotes are an indication of ideology and intent. Also, even the ideology is subjective and people will take the same information and interpret it differently...so why even bother? Why not do what makes sense and meets the standards we have now, keep what continues to work and discard what does not?

I disagree, I think the ideas should be challenged and I dont think they are quite as great as we have been told they are. I also think that we should simply look at what WORKS for us now and how we want to proceed to the future while always leaving room for that elasticity thats always needed to grow and change.

Sure lets deal in over-exaggerated extremes instead of recognize that life and development are not static.

Lets use propagandized labels to ward of actual discussion of the merits associated with this issue.

I'll bookmark this page and get back to you tomorrow. It's 3 in the morning and I have a calc test I have to study for.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

No rush, and good luck on your test!

Things we have learned since the founding fathers:

Government:
Wilsonian Liberalism, and the concept of an international governing institution to promote peace

Neo-liberalism: the incorporation of foreign markets into one's own to establish inter-connected relations between states and economies.

Free markets with few to no regulations can lead to corporate monopolies (turn of the century specifically).

Keynesian Economics: the use of the state to incur debt while supporting a the economy

Not to mention the tests of communism throughout the world that have failed. Wether they really reflected communism is another debate, but what has been created failed pretty spectacularly.


Human Nature:

We are not programmed into the distinct categories of Hobbes nor Locke (and rousseau), instead we are an incredibly complex living organism that does not specifically follow the concepts of Tabula Rasa nor the "short brutish lives" of Hobbes. Instead, science has empirically proven within the last decade that our lives are 60% pre-determined by our genetics while the remaining 40% is formulated by our nurtured lives.

Not much else to say on that since Sociology and Psychology are relatively new fields of science, but to say the least, they have opened VERY new and wide insights into the complexities of human nature.

__________________
Signature:

Some of the founding fathers actually wanted to abolish slavery. However, in order to get the southern states to ratify, they compromised. This conflict continued right up until its resolution with the Civil War.




Except when the violation is a tax, right?

Guys like George Washington and Jefferson considered themselves servents. Washington didn't even want to be president.

Monarchy in the republic, isn't that an oxymoron?



Are you advocating the split of the country?



Lets also act like we have just "grown past" something that has been an important part of our nation since the begining. Lets also speak of it like it's a despicable evil thing just to drive home the point.

Why do you want so badly to change what has worked for the past 200 years?

Right is right and wrong is wrong .... whether it is was written 230 years ago or 2000 years ago. Circumstance doesn't change that ... there is no equivocation. It doesn't change with passing time ... right is right and wrong is wrong.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Some of them "wanting" but compromising isnt any indication they viewed slavery as an abomination..it was obviously a point they were willing to concede. I think thats a very different view than we have now and even clashes directly with our current moral standards.

A nation, a state, a community, a home all take money to run. Taxes are neccessary and not a violation of your rights. When they are mis-used and diverted to parties who enrich themselves and its not spent on what the population collectively agrees to, then its an abuse and THATS the violation. Having to pay to build and maintain our society is not a violation.

Again this is all just subjective sort of conjecture that doesnt mean much because they created a system where the elites would rule over the masses and give the masses very little say in how the govt operates nor in the policies and laws they enact. Thats not viewing govt as servants...(and easy word to use to gain support) but in action it sets govt up as power, the sort we saw in monarchy and nobles.


Unfortunately, in practice no. If you travel the right circles, have the right amount of money and come from certain families...you have power and you rule without real regard for the peasants but instead they are dumb expendable cattle to be used at will (including in wars for more riches to benefit the elites (monarchy and friends). The outcome seems to be far too similiar.

If the contention is that the nation is far too large to be run as one nation, then obviously it cant function as a nation and shouldnt right?

It wasnt me who believed it couldnt be run as one nation though...that was someone else who believed states rights should stay because otherwise they are ruled by people far away and removed...thats sounds like they view other areas of the nation as too far away and removed and dont see themselves as part of that national group at all.


No one has called it evil but we have grown past it in many ways...I think the whole trying to run states as very seperate entities who make their own laws is a good example of that. I think you keep trying to mischaracterize and exaggerate my position because you dont like the idea of "founding fathers" or the "constitution" being challenged.

I think we should be careful not elevate founding fathers and the constitution into some sort of religion that cant be questioned or changed.


Of course things have to change! Life changes whether you want it to or not. We face new challenges and have some challenges that we no longer face. We have changed it already numerous times....we will continue to. Even now, we can come up with a brilliant new system...that doesnt mean people 200 years from now should cling to it...it may not be so brilliant a system 200 years from now.