Ironically, the Federalist Party didn't last very long or maybe it just became a party with a different name. The anti-federalist seem to have been right.
Why the C.S.A. was just in going to war during the War of Yankee Agression. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs3VlnOLSEU --- In [email protected], "goldrecordings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm looking for some people to participate in the blog comments at > > http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/06/28/henry-takes-on-chertoff > > It may be a little hard to tell who said what in this email (it just > quotes the text, not the blockquotes) or yahoogroups post (depending > on your preferred mode of delivery) so please if you answer do so > +++in the comments at LFV+++ not on yahoo groups/email! > > > > The Anti-Federalist Epiphany > > > Posted June 28th, 2007 by TitaniumGirl > > Here's an actual conversation/epiphany I had with my husband not very > long ago while driving in the car. > > Titaniumgirl: I've always heard that the Federalist Society was good, > but wouldn't the Anti-Federalists be the true good guys? > > Titaniumboy: Federalists are the good ones, the anti-Federalists are not. > > Titaniumgirl: That's what we are told, but the War of Northern > Agression was most certainly supported by the federalists. > > Titaniumboy: But, we are told that the Federalists are good. > > Titaniumgirl: We are also told that Abe Lincoln was among the best > presidents ever, and he was actually an authoritarian dictator who > suspended habeaus corpus and killed approximately two hundred thousand > people. Every other country on earth ended slavery peacefully, but he > was hell bent on wielding power and destruction to anyone who did not > support "federalism". > > Titaniumboy: Hmmm > > Titaniumgirl: Maybe the problem is that all of these law schools have > elite "Federalist Societies" and they act like it's just and > honorable. The Anti-Federalist's are overlooked, not even spoken of. > The Articles of Confederation were a great thing yet we are told/were > told in history class that they needed to be discarded because the > government needed MORE POWER. You can call me an Anti-Federalist > because I would like a very limited government. I'm an > Anti-Federalist because I don't like death, destruction and dictators. > > Titaniumboy: (looking very confused) Okay, whatever. > > > > 1. Old Guard Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 6:31 am e > > Yeah, we are told how great FDR was too. The winners get to > write the (main stream) history. The losers are sometimes permitted, > as in the case of the Lost Causers, to obfuscate the truth about their > activities - e.g. pirates are glamorous, Confederate soldiers were > fighting for an honorable cause. > > 2. Chuck Moulton Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 8:27 am e > > The Anti-Federalists had a lot of good ideas. > > Interestingly, politicians have been naming things the opposite > of what they are for marketing purposes since the country was founded > this is the earliest case in American history that I am aware of. The > Federalists claimed the name "Federalists" to preempt their > opposition. In reality it was the Anti-Federalists that advocated for > federalism and the Federalists that advocated for a strong central > government. > > So George W. Bush is in good company with his USA PATRIOT Act, > No Child Left Behind, etc. > > 3. pauliecannoli Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 11:44 am e > > The Whiskey Rebellion. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion > > Shay's rebellion > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion > > Fascinating stuff! > > 4. G.E. Smith Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm e > > The Articles of Confedration were sufficient if think the > central government is the only entity capable of violating individual > rights. They were not sufficient for African slaves, women, etc., to > be free from the initiation state-sanctioned force. The Articles had > no Bill of Rights. I'll take the Constitution, and I think Kunta Kinte > would agree with me. > > 5. pauliecannoli Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 4:48 pm e > > The central government was certainly NOT the only entity capable > of violating individual rights. > > However, on balance, the federal government - particularly the > much later implemented incorporation doctrine you imply by mentioning > the BoR, otherwise with the BoR only applied to the feds themselves - > is more destructive than protective of rights. > > Likewise, a strong UN might indeed play some positive role in > liberating some countries from dictators or genocide or preventing > conflicts, but it isn't worth the risk of a totalitarian world government. > > Decentralization is not perfect by any means, but it's generally > a step in the right direction, with individual sovereignty being the > end goal. > > 6. G.E. Smith Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 5:06 pm e > > Governments exist to defend individual rights. If the Bill of > Rights applied only to the federal government, and the federal > government had no real power, then the Bill of Rights would be useless > which it essentially was prior to the 14th amendment. > > When you advocate the type of "anti-federalism" you are > advocating, you are essentially granting each of the fifty states the > authority to be a little tyranny all to itself. Governments exist to > defend individual rights, and if they do not do this, they are > illegitimate. There is no purpose for a national government if it does > not exist to defend our rights, including against the "state's right" > (sic) of racist, sexist, and otherwise collectivist tyrants. > > I know, I know You can cite me a huge long list of government > abuses. Well, I have one that the national government helped end: > Slavery. You can't top that. Another female disenfranchisement, and > later, minority disenfranchisement. All of the abuses by the feds > against the states cannot begin to remotely compare. > > 7. pauliecannoli Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 5:38 pm e > > Governments exist to defend individual rights. > > Nice theory. I contend that it is merely the latest window > dressing used to justify their existence, though. > > If the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal > government, and the federal government had no real power, then the > Bill of Rights would be useless which it essentially was prior to > the 14th amendment. > > The price is having a federal government big enough to enforce > it against local tyrants. I say it isn't worth it, although it may not > be readily apparent. > > When you advocate the type of "anti-federalism" you are > advocating, you are essentially granting each of the fifty states the > authority to be a little tyranny all to itself. Governments exist to > defend individual rights, and if they do not do this, they are > illegitimate. There is no purpose for a national government if it does > not exist to defend our rights, including against the "state's right" > (sic) of racist, sexist, and otherwise collectivist tyrants. > > But what happens when the federal government becomes tyrannical? > Unlike the local tyranny, which a smaller number of people may be more > readily able to defeat, or - failing that - to emigrate from, a > federal tyranny is harder to mobilize against, and takes more effort > to move out of. It also adds layers of extra bureaucracy and > unaccountability; hardly a good thing. > > I know, I know You can cite me a huge long list of > government abuses. Well, I have one that the national government > helped end: Slavery. You can't top that. Another female > disenfranchisement, and later, minority disenfranchisement. All of the > abuses by the feds against the states cannot begin to remotely compare. > > I wouldn't say the feds' imperialism, the domestic tyranny > imposed in the name of foreign wars, the federal war against the > American indigenous peoples, the trillions of dollars of stolen tax > money, the many trillions more kept from being created by regulations, > the injustices perpetrated by corporations protected by limited > liability and corporate personhood, the corporate welfare and wars on > behalf of corporate interests, the war on drugs, etc, etc, are so > readily dismissed. > > It's true that the feds ended chattel slavery and Jim Crow in > the South. Could it have been done otherwise? Had the south been > allowed to secede and the north stopped enforcing its fugitive slave > laws, slavery could not have lasted long. More importantly, the US > imperialist state of the late 19th century on may well have never > emerged, WWI could have ended in the negotiated neutral end it was > headed toward without US involvement before 1917, and fascism, nazism > and Marxism may very well have never come to power. > > Every nation in the Americas except Haiti and the US ended > slavery without a war around that time, Brazil being the last in 1888 > or so, if I recall my reading correctly. > > Or, let's take a more contemporary example: > > Black and Latino communities suffer disproportionately from > police brutality. It's local cops, but the weapons and paramilitary > tactics come from the feds. The "wars" leading to the militarization > of local police departments - against drugs and terrorism - come from > the top. The equipment is the leftovers of the military-industrial > complex sold at military fire sales or given away in fire sales by the > feds to police gangs. The members of those gangs in many cases got > their training brutalizing people in the federal regime's foreign wars. > > So, is it worth it to have a strong federal government? It may > seem that way at first, but I think that is a case of what Bastiat > called "that which is seen and that which is not seen". > > 8. G.E. Smith Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 6:51 pm e > > It's not my "theory" it's from the Declaration of Independence. > > The absence of government is tribalism. I'll take our current > state of affairs over pre-historic barbarism, and I'll work to make > the government conform to the unknown ideal of a truly limited > government that exists solely for the protection of individual rights. > > Perhaps the South should have been allowed to secede and the > North should have offered asylum to escaped slaves. But whatever > "injustices" perpetrated by the North in the Civil War ("War of > Northern Aggression" is racist code, must like "states' rights") do > not justify disgusting neo-confederate revisionism, nor do they > preclude the morality of a national government wielding its monopoly > of force against those who violate individual rights. All the nasty > stuff you can cite and I'm not "dismissing" it or contesting it > still doesn't invalidate the virtue of the 14th amendment applying all > other amendments to the states as well as the federal government. You > will argue that the government should not exist. My point is, if it > cannot defend my rights, then no, it shouldn't. > > 9. pauliecannoli Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 7:11 pm e > > It's not my "theory" it's from the Declaration of > Independence. > > That's a theory. The results are somewhat different. > > The absence of government is tribalism. > > Monopoly government itself is tribalism, only elevated to a more > deadly level. Or is it technological progress that you think is made > possible by government? > > I'll take our current state of affairs over pre-historic > barbarism, and I'll work to make the government conform to the unknown > ideal of a truly limited government that exists solely for the > protection of individual rights. > > It's a false choice. Prehistoric barbarism is a function of > technology. Monopoly government does not advance the progress of > civilization, it retards it. As for limited government, that's like > limited cancer. > > But whatever "injustices" perpetrated by the North in the > Civil War ("War of Northern Aggression" is racist code, must like > "states' rights") do not justify disgusting neo-confederate > revisionism, nor do they preclude the morality of a national > government wielding its monopoly of force against those who violate > individual rights. > > Injustices perpetrated by the north were quite real. > Neo-confederate revisionism goes too far in many cases, but it also > exposes commonly held misconceptions about the war; both sides go too > far in looking at complex historical events selectively to whitewash > one side and overvilify the other. > > As for monopoly force, I'm against it. It may protect some > individual rights but ultimately it destroys them far more. > > You will argue that the government should not exist. My > point is, if it cannot defend my rights, then no, it shouldn't. > > Glad we agree :-) > > 10. pauliecannoli Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm e > > Hey, other people, feel free to chime in any time > > 11. G.E. Smith Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 8:05 pm e > > Neither of us is going to convince the other, but this can still > be productive (I guess): Yes, I do believe that limited-government > capitalism is the only moral or rational method of societal > organization, and that the absence thereof ("anarchy") is inherently > tribalist and collectivist, as history (pre-history) demonstrates. > Tribes do not respect individual rights; they respect force both > internally and externally. And yes, I do believe technology is a > function of capitalism, which requires the existence of government to > enforce individual (and property) rights. Again, I think the empirical > data is on my side. The progress of humanity under various tribal, > feudal, mercantilist regimes was largely stagnant, whereas America's > form of limited-government capitalism is where most innovations took > place. If you quantified technological accomplishments throughout > man's history a good 99.9999999%+ have taken place in the past 200 > years; most of them in America, and virtually all others inspired by > the American system. > > Truly legitimate government which exists solely to defend > individual rights is an unknown ideal. But it is more realistic an > ideal than utopian anarchism, wherein the very nature of man must be > recalibrated in order for the fantasy of "anarcho-capitalism" to work. > In truth, the destruction of the state leads to tribalism, feudalism, > or the rise of a new (not necessarily more benevolent) state. The > government envisioned in the Constitution is ultimately desirable, and > we have more ability to re-engineer the nature of government than we > do to re-engineer the nature of man. > > 12. pauliecannoli Says: > June 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pm e > > GE - I could answer, but I want to give some other people a > crack at this. I'll try to do some recruiting for the thread comments > elsewhere. > > =paul >
