Were the anti-federalists right?

[Slartibartfast]

Contributing to a campaign is bribery?



Of course it can man a difference. But that is not bribery.

It absolutely is, but its been redefined legally. Any financial contribution which alters the behavior of legislators is in essence bribery.

 

[Tigger]

Well you seem to think your opinions matter a great deal to everything outside the US.

So we'll say what we like.

Not really. Honestly, I'd prefer a total Isolationist USA. If we could achieve that, I wouldn't spare two seconds of my life with what any of you outside the US thinks, does, or says.

 

[scatt]

It absolutely is, but its been redefined legally. Any financial contribution which alters the behavior of legislators is in essence bribery

If you have any this for that you are aware of why not alert the authorities?

 

[Slartibartfast]

If you have any this for that you are aware of why not alert the authorities?

because legality and morality are not always the same thing. I am looking at bribery from a moral perspective. Unfortunately, we have a case of "who watches the watchers?" people who regulate themselves such as congress or the board of a business always make the rules in their favor.

 

[notquiteright]

So you'd applaud your kid fir getting a 65 on a test because nobody else in the class got a higher score? The US Government is a JOKE. It's just less a joke than the others.

Depends on the test, not all tests are created equal. Suppose the test was for 3rd year law and my kid was in the 12th grade. That 65 is looking pretty damn good.

What the government looks like depends a great deal on the set of eyeballs giving it the once over. Perhaps the joke isn't the government but some who think it is. I mean some in hear have given us quite a few laughs with opinions of women in the workplace and how authoritarian a 'good' government should be- then of course howl at a government they think is too authoritarian... :roll:

 

[scatt]

because legality and morality are not always the same thing. I am looking at bribery from a moral perspective. Unfortunately, we have a case of "who watches the watchers?" people who regulate themselves such as congress or the board of a business always make the rules in their favor.

So you agree that the state is the problem?

 

[Tigger]

Depends on the test, not all tests are created equal. Suppose the test was for 3rd year law and my kid was in the 12th grade. That 65 is looking pretty damn good.

What the government looks like depends a great deal on the set of eyeballs giving it the once over. Perhaps the joke isn't the government but some who think it is. I mean some in hear have given us quite a few laughs with opinions of women in the workplace and how authoritarian a 'good' government should be- then of course howl at a government they think is too authoritarian... :roll:

The biggest problem of the US Government isn't necessarily it's size but the things it is focused on doing and ignores.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So you agree that the state is the problem?

It is part of the problem. "the problem" is no single thing or any one entity. "The problem" stems from things as diverse as our culture(s), how we manage the market or how we construct our version of capitalism, religiosity as well as anti-religiosity, how we regulate various aspects of society, and that large entities tend to be problematic and harmful to society.

There is no single or simple solution either.

Also, as far as I can tell, there keystone issue that will get things in order. Its a bunch of little things that mostly are hard to individually tackle.

 

[scatt]

It is part of the problem. "the problem" is no single thing.

Can you bribe a state that doesn't exist?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Can you bribe a state that doesn't exist?

If the state didn't exist, I would be too worried about trying to survive in a dystopia to care about such a question.

 

[scatt]

If the state didn't exist, I would be too worried about trying to survive in a dystopia to care about such a question.

You would be worried about the state if there was no state?

 

[notquiteright]

The biggest problem of the US Government isn't necessarily it's size but the things it is focused on doing and ignores.

Vague enough to be meaningless... Now everyone has their priorities so the mindset of the individual is key. Once again I'd say the joke can often be found in the person declaring government a joke as their substitutions would be absurd to the point of making the much faulted government seem heaven sent.

But I do love your line about not caring a whit about what those outside the USofA boundaries after the long tirades about how you wish you could leave this country... :lol:

The bipolar temperament in the extreme nationalism balanced against the hate for the nation, most of it's people, and the laws is amazing...

 

[joG]

Those who have done any studying of the founding of our nation and ratification of our Constitution know it was no easy path to get to the government we currently have. And those that stood against the Constitution had numerous reasons, from the lack of a bill of rights to concerns about a huge government that usurps the power of states and doesn't listen to the citizens of the nation. No doubt at that point in time something had to be done as the government at the time was not working, and there was a very real risk to the nation, in terms of the union falling apart.

But now that we have the benefit of hindsight, were the anti-federalists right? It seems a lot of the things they worried about have come to pass, and indeed federal government has grown massively big and dictates to us what we may or may not do, in areas that were never supposed to be part of their 'power'.

Gov George Clinton (gov of NY) stood against the Constitution, and wrote: "If you are negligent or inattentive, the ambitious and despotic will entrap you in their toils, and bind you with the cord of power from which you and your posterity may never be free." It certainly seems that we have reached this point.

In these things and especially in retrospect, right or wrong about historical development is rather mute . Also it is not usually a question of good for everyone vs for nobody. It is a question of for whom. Another thing that should be noted is the probability of wars on the territory of the US. After all the Europeans fought a number of rather nasty wars of various sizes in the period since 1800. In the States there was one, presumably because security was internalized at the Federal level.
Going forward, the problems are similar. In addition we would have to consider the costs that we would encounter from a break up . It would be orderly, but the whole system is optimized for a union and not for a group of nations.

 

[Arbo]

No, they were wrong. We've got the best system of government ever devised, though it is clearly not without its imperfections.

What is 'best' has nothing to do with the equation or question. Have many of the 'bad' things they predicted come to pass? Has apathy and ignorance of the citizens allowed the 'ruling class' to grow to a level of power (at the fed level) that was never intended?

 

[Arbo]

Yep. Citizens United was the latest step towards full on plutocracy.

Citizens United didn't have near the impact that those that stood against it said it would. The 'other guys' are still blowing the doors off of the right in terms of PACs, money and all those 'bad' things those that didn't like the decision seem ok with when it's 'their guy' doing it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You would be worried about the state if there was no state?

If there was no state, which I interpret to mean no government and/or national borders, I would be too worried trying to survive because there would be violence everywhere.

 

[Arbo]

In these things and especially in retrospect, right or wrong about historical development is rather mute . Also it is not usually a question of good for everyone vs for nobody. It is a question of for whom. Another thing that should be noted is the probability of wars on the territory of the US. After all the Europeans fought a number of rather nasty wars of various sizes in the period since 1800. In the States there was one, presumably because security was internalized at the Federal level.
Going forward, the problems are similar. In addition we would have to consider the costs that we would encounter from a break up . It would be orderly, but the whole system is optimized for a union and not for a group of nations.

The problem is people now (and then) take the term anti-federalist at face value. It was coined by the Federalists for a reason, that being to put a negative view on them. The reality is a large part of the anti-federalists were not against a federal government, they just wanted more checks on it overstepping it's bounds, a tighter framework to not allow to happen what clearly has happened over time.

 

[scatt]

If there was no state, which I interpret to mean no government and/or national borders, I would be too worried trying to survive because there would be violence everywhere.

People will commit become states if there is no state?

 

[Slartibartfast]

People will commit become states if there is no state?

I think you might be missing a few words in that sentence. My brain ran into a parsing error.

 

[joG]

The problem is people now (and then) take the term anti-federalist at face value. It was coined by the Federalists for a reason, that being to put a negative view on them. The reality is a large part of the anti-federalists were not against a federal government, they just wanted more checks on it overstepping it's bounds, a tighter framework to not allow to happen what clearly has happened over time.

That behavior is normal and the same is visible in Europe right now.

 

[scatt]

I think you might be missing a few words in that sentence.

The problem with no state is that new states would exist, right?

 

[Slartibartfast]

The problem with no state is that new states would exist, right?

I consider a state of no government to be a problem. I like that there is a government, it keeps society in order, which provides me a feeling of comfort and security.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Citizens United didn't have near the impact that those that stood against it said it would. The 'other guys' are still blowing the doors off of the right in terms of PACs, money and all those 'bad' things those that didn't like the decision seem ok with when it's 'their guy' doing it.

I didn't specify any group benefiting from the opening providing by SCOTUS did I?
If legislators or regulators or judges or sheriffs are spending most of their time fundraising, how the hell can we expect them to do their jobs? It does not matter which political stripes they wear. Their decisions or their actions should never be influenced by how much money they have received or will receive.

 

[scatt]

I consider a state of no government to be a problem. I like that there is a government, it keeps society in order, which provides me a feeling of comfort and security.

I referenced no state, but you keep saying a state will be there. No state. Period.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I referenced no state, but you keep saying a state will be there. No state. Period.

If there is no state, then men with guns will rule and brutally.

Total anarchy can never exist. Even tribes had a chief and a wise man.