You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Political Mythology 101 (Part One)
You know that when the our current Constitution was being considered, the so-called "anti-federalists" warned that it would never work. They said, "Yeah, it's nice that the Constitution contains safeguards against tyranny, but where's the enforcement mechanism?"
It's scary and spooky to read the "Anti-Federalist Papers", because every bad thing that they predicted would happen if the Constitution were adopted has, in fact, come to pass.
Anti-Federalist still wanted government, on the state/commenwealth level. They just wanted a government close to them and easier to control. Just remember that the Anti-Federalist were an exclusive club who had their own interest at heart, just like democratic-republican party from the time period. They were all rich, white, landowning, male and slave owners. Anti-Federalist were in fact the ones who pushed to keep slavery at every chance.
This is true. But at least, they saw the danger of adopting the Constitution with its new, stronger federal government.
Well let's be clear federalists were also rich, white, landowning, male slave owners. Slave owning was par. The debate was to give a centralized political class all the power, and the army to enforce it, or keep it decentralized. Clearly the anti-federalists were correct as we see today. And a point on slavery, if not for the illegal secession from the (first) Confederacy, there would have needed to be no mass slaughter to end slavery in the US. Slavery was for commercial purposes was ending due to inevitable economic inefficiency, and State members of the Articles of Confederation would have done it piecemeal (or peacemeal) and much sooner.
And if words on paper have force, the Articles had actual verbiage denying secession. The Constitution was thus illegal, by the very logic of Lincoln apologists. The Constitution gives no authority to the President to oppose secession, much less start a war without Congress' approval, which he did. But if one likes to believe secession was illegal somehow then the Constitution itself was an illegal document of secession from the Articles. And then of course so to was the Declaration illegal in overturning the King's edicts.
Regardless no piece of paper can legitimately deny anyone the right to free association and disassociation, unless the person to be bound signs it under no duress. So all of it was just a bunch of people writing themselves the power to own people. In perpetuity, through blood and land, until your children's children, ye shall all be the property of Washington DC.
Anyway smaller and closer means harder to control by people who want to control it all, which was exactly what. the bad guys like Hamilton and Adams wanted.
If one pretends to value democracy, and 'good government', then in all ways and all cases smaller is better. Yeah the rich guy on the corner may have more pull on the city council, but at least you can get to him and the city council. The inevitable corruption (because that's what government is) is at least harder to hide, and thus, much less. Because the power is much less there is less to sell to monied interests. If DC couldn't tax or subsidize, there would be no lobbyists. But of course prostitutes are there to be bought, and make sure they always have something to sell.