Concentrated power is the enemy of freedom and liberty

America: The People Have Never been Represented

Intro
I created this, mostly in because something dawned upon. Most of us can agree upon that we are not in control of our lives, our humanity, our community, and our destiny. Our fate has been put in hands other than us.

You can say that this is how its always been. Yes, but in more recent year, with globalization, international-communications, and reduction of sovereignty, that our lives are ever-more spinning out of our control.

That brought me to a new realization. The general public, outside of the ATS and intelligent community, believes in a so called, 'representation' in our government and decision-making process.

They feel secure in our system, believing that an array of senators, mayors, congressmen, officers, leaders, and representatives are taking care of these problems. We give them an amass of power to take care of problems.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Concentrated power is the enemy of freedom and liberty"

So true. I will review several historical events that point towards that point.

A little history; When the Constitution was drafted and formed; and during ratification of the 1780's, the leaders split into two camps: The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

Federalists: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, John Jay, James Madison
-The Constitution
-Argued the importance of leadership by a "natural aristocracy of talent"
-Supported a large Federal Government

Anti-Federalists (Later formed into Jeffersonians/Republicans(of early 1800's)): Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay
-Favored State's rights/power
-Feared Large Central Gov't
-Favored Articles of Confederation

When George Washington was elected president, political parties didn't exist. Soon after, they divided into these familiar camps from when they were drafting the Constitution.

Probably now your asking "Why?"
I explained this to you because Federalism won out. As I mentioned, they believed in a ""natural aristocracy of talent" by electing rich merchants and important people to office.

In this early time, the people certainly enjoyed much liberty and freedom, but they were far from it. This point leads into the next one.

Alien and Sedation Acts

President John Adams, fearing of a French invasion because of the XYZ affair (en.wikipedia.org...), and the violation of the Alliance Treaty of 1778 (en.wikipedia.org...), the President passed several Acts:

-The Alien Act-Authorized the President to expel aliens who he judged "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States"
-The Naturalization Act-Raised the residence requirement for citizenship from 5 to 14 years
-Alien Enemies Act-Empowered the President in time of war to arrest, imprison, or banish the subjects of any hostile nation without specifying charges against them or providing opportunity for appeal.*
-Sedition Act-Makes it punishable by fine and imprisonment for anyone to conspire in opposition to "any measure of measures of the government," or to aid "any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination"


...

Obviously, when you first read that, you could not believe that. How much does it look like the Guantanamo Bay detaining, and the PATRIOT ACT?


What I want to point out here are the connection's between TODAY and THEN and how States reacted.

In 1798, Virginia and Kentucky passed a resolution declaring that the government had violated the Bill of Rights (DUH!) and subsequently outlawed that Federal Law in their state.

That is known of Nullification, and is now, illegal, for obvious reasons. There was drastic upheaval and protest to these acts, targeted at the French.

Okay, lets compare these to The Guantanamo Bay detaining and the PATRIOT ACT. They both were similar as
The Guantanamo Bay to Alien Enemies Act (See above) and the PATRIOT ACT to the Sedition Act.

During the 1790's states like Kentucky and Virginia stood up to these outrageous laws, but what do we see today? Nothing.

Coming from James Madison's own resolution, asserted that when the central government threatened the people's liberties, the states were, "duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil"

That brings me back to Representation and my thesis that, "Concentrated power is the enemy of freedom and liberty"

The Federalists were concerned only about having strong central government with an aristocracy of leadership. They planted the seeds that dominated American politics even to this day.

Then our Representatives, did not stop the PATRIOT ACT and the outrageous Guantanamo Bay detaining. We trusted these people to help us, and we gave them some power to do that, but THEY DID NOT.

Even on the State level, they ignored their "duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil".

Between these two times, nothing changed. It just masqueraded itself with a new face. What have we learned about freedom and injustice? Nothing, the only thing that changed was our demand for freedom, which comes nothing more than a faint whisper.


"Concentrated power is the enemy of freedom and liberty"

Acknowledgments:
The American People: Creating a Nation and a Society
Ramsey County Public Libraries

[edit on 28-12-2008 by truth_seeker3]

You might find of value the book "Breakdown of Nations" by Leopold Kohr. He advocated a return to governments of small states, simply on the basis that with small power results small actions, and therefore no means of agression towards other states can be maintained, I also think a re popularization of the MAD mutually assured destruction theory needs consideration. The problem we have today seems to stem from the threat to America or other nations of nuclear weapons being used against these large powers, therefore in order to minimize these threats one should look to decentralize our society, so in the event of a WDC nuke we have redundency, but I would add the need to nuke a WDC would greatly diminish if the power were completely decentralized into 50 countries or more. The idea that a federalist style government could or would attack countries around the world diminishes when the size of the population shrinks and they are forbidden from engaging in alliances with neighbors in order to attack foreign countries, we are sadly nowhere near these dreams of a government reduction, but maybe we will get there anyways, the problem occurs when people are forced to give up freedoms to join a global government or a large one such as the USA. The breakup of America should not be viewed as a negative but a positive step in a more mature direction, we are mostly like an emotionally attached society, glued to the TV in the hope that we can remain unchanged and all as one group, but diversity actually demands that we let go those that choose to leave, as parents let their children leave the home eventually, the forst civil war was a warning, the next one, if that occurs as a resuolt of resistence to the pressure to breakup occurs might become a disaster, but it doesn't have to be, if the media and the federalists pursure measures to punish and attack these seperatists we all lose, including them.

Yes, good point. I wrote that paper for my college American History class.

Anyways, I totally agree with you on part with MAD. It would be a good way to support the dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Also, I would support a more 'confederation' of states like in the Articles of Confederation instead of a large Federal Gov't, because concentrations of power leads to less freedoms.

Anyways, once political parties formed, individuals could not be held accountable to their actions, which lead them to believe they could get away with stuff like 9-11, the War in Iraq, IE George W Bush.