Originally posted by asperetty
reply to post by nenothtu
By Middle Age reform I meant feudalism.
Oddly enough, the idea of feudalism came up in other discussions relative to this. I believe that the final consensus was that communism as
exemplified by the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia after it became Kampuchea, etc. as well as capitalism as exemplified by the current American
Corporate State, multinational corporations, aspects of colonialism, etc. were all down to a feudalistic system at their most basic level. Feudalism
is what both AdAbsurdum and I are against, although we still seem to find ourselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Feudalism was a highly
centralized structure, with one guy or a small group at the top of the heap making all the decisions and taking all the increase. That's what we are
arguing against when we argue for decentralization.
My sig here at ATS used to be "The danger comes neither from the left nor the right, but from the center, and centralization of power will be the
death of us all."
I changed it eventually, because I didn't think anyone was listening.
But forget that I even said it.
Ever said what?
I am convinced by you and Ab. The overall idea of freedom to choose is what this thread is about, and exactly what this country is about. Yes, you can
have a communistic state, and I can have my educationalist state. You be Sparta, I'll be Athens, but together we are Greece.
Exactly! By Jove, I think you've got it! I'm so far to the right that I nearly wrap around to the left, and AdAbsurdum is so far to the left that he
rubs up against the right. That's how far apart we are politically. The fact remains, however, that there IS common ground, a common enemy. That enemy
would be the various manifestations of centralization, whether that's Feudlism, Marxism, or Corporatism.
A fact arising from that is that if we can find that common ground, and assist yet others to find it, then all this petty BS that is hinged on the
false "left/right" paradigm can be gotten over, done away with. Sure, we'll still have political differences of opinion, and disagreements, but we can
learn not to CONCENTRATE on those, and attempt to impose our own notions on others. When we allocate too much of that sort of concentration as a play
ground, it's the common enemy that has a field day, and gets away with their nefarious schemes while the rest of us are otherwise occupied. It's a
case of not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way.
There is no logical reason that every person can't find their own place in the sun, and not fight over it to try forcing other into their way of
What you guys are talking about is right 100%. Really, what you you both have said has convinced me, in terms of the federal restraints that limit it
to its basic and fundamental operations, and the states rights. If one state is failing, then they can adopt another state's governing principles,
whether it be economic or political, but that is the choice of the people of that state. My fear was that a failed state could result in discrepancies
between that state and others, but even still, that is where the federal government steps in.
Precisely. The People of a State will not allow it to fail if given the opportunity to avoid it. After all, it's THEIR quality of life that is
affected. If it involves changing some particulars to some other, presumably better, way, they can accomplish that until they're satisfied, and it
need not spill over into other States where the people may be happy with what they already have. A Federal Mandate affects ALL, whether they like it
or not, whether they need or want it or not. As a matter of fact, in my view one of the functions of a Federal Government properly ought to be
preventing just that sort of blanket "solution", not mandating it.
But if you limit the government to solely a large judicial entity, you are severely limiting the potential of the country, and that is my only
argument. Then again, that is the job of a government, to mediate, not to control or even act unless it is in reaction, and I can't really argue
further without contradicting everything I say.
The effectiveness of judicial solutions is directly proportional to the quality and clarity of the laws already in place. I wouldn't call it a largely
judicial entity. The same three branches we have now would be represented, but much smaller and drastically more limited in scope. Penalties for
violation those limitations would be quite a bit more severe.
You're right in a way, though, since I personally don't see a need for a full and constant legislative branch. I believe they should meet in scheduled
sessions, take care of the business at hand that has presented itself between sessions, then go back home until the next session. I DON'T believe they
should be a constant presence in DC, and away from their constituency all the time. That sort of thing fosters corruption, and fosters the legislators
coming to identify themselves more with the DC culture than that of their own People, whom they are alleged to represent. Further, it fosters the
notion that they need to pass laws to justify their positions. Such is not actually the case. We have far too many laws now, more than anyone can
possibly keep up with. Sometimes, when something isn't broken, there's just no need to go ahead and fix it anyhow.
It is free market society in every aspect, and that I can accept.
I would prefer to think of it as a "free choice" society, and not involve the market aspects in politics, but essentially you are correct. Everyone
gets the choice of what sort of economics they would prefer to engage in, from socialist to capitalist and all the permutations in between. It might
involve moving to another State, but that option is wide open for those who are disaffected enough with what they have where they are.
Also about the militia, I did not know my mom can buy stingers.
I used to know a guy in Alexandria who could hook her right up with one, for the right price!
But seriously, the idea is to replace a standing army, or National Service Army with a more democratically represented body, made up of ALL the
people. They would have a vested interest in their own defense, Would be VERY difficult for a power monger to abuse (he'd have to turn them on
themselves - quite a trick), Would require less upkeep (militias are only supported on the public dime when in actual use), and would have access to
all the equipment now held by the standing army, since they would replace it.
That doesn't mean everyone would have their own nuke silo in the back yard, it simply means that they would be properly equipped, and properly trained
in the use and employment of that equipment, in tactics, etc.
I was still in the mindset of having a national army, with the real weapons, while the average citizen had the left overs in the black market, with
that market no longer being black. but I think it might be better that the states can purchase or develop their own military and can come together in
times of war. Otherwise, there really is no need for a national military constantly on alert, is there?
No, there really isn't. The Founding Fathers saw an incipient danger in standing armies, which is why THEY preferred the militia model. What this
whole philosophy boils down to in my mind is a return to the original tenets that the US was based upon, before it got all corrupted and out of
That's why the Continental Army was disbanded after it was no longer needed. They'd had recent experience of the quartering and abuses of a standing
army - the British one.
In defense of my opinion that states or the federal govt should be able to make revenue outside of taxes, the way that this money is spent, or even
where it is invested, is decided upon the people, always. If it is federal expenditure, then the states must ratify, according to majority or
otherwise, whatever it may be. The point is that the states will determine where to invest and where to spend on the federal level, not that the
federal govt has its own power to lend and spend. This goes for the state spending, the residents of that state need to approve where the money goes,
and how the money is spent, or even if the state can do anything with the tax revenue at all. No governing entity has the right to spend money unless
the people who are being governed approve of it.
I agree wholeheartedly with most of that, but I stick at allowing the federal government to engage in investment. If by that you mean playing the
stock market, securities, and speculation, that's one of the problems we have now - trying to make something out of nothing. I suppose it COULD work,
assuming that the entire house of cards were built on something tangible, rather than the current fiat basis we have, and speculation were ruled out
altogether, since the government should NEVER be allowed to gamble with the People's money. Also in your defense, if properly set up and handled, it
could potentially reduce taxes across the board, since some of that would be made up for by investment income.
I need to read. Can either of you recommend some books for me?
I can't think of any. My own political ideas have been developed over years, by reading whatever I could find on the subject, but nothing sticks in my
mind. Maybe the founding documents, the Federalist Papers, writings by the Founding Fathers, but that really won't cover the entire spectrum, or even
agree with this new philosophy in all points. The Communist Manifesto by Marx would be another thing to read, but it won't agree with this new
philosophy in all points, either. From my perspective, it can provide some excellent NEGATIVE examples, though!
On militia matters: :Guerrilla War", by Che Guevara, "On Guerilla War" by Mao, "Guerilla War" by Bert Levy, "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, "A Book of
Five Rings" by Miyamoto Muashi, "36 Stratagems", author unknown, "A Minimanual for the Urban Guerrilla" by Carlos Marighella, "The Scout" by Ion
Idreiss (actually his whole series of pamphlets would be valuable), and "The Edicts of Ares: Thirteen Absolute Rules of Warfare" by Michael C. Riggs
would all be included in good starter kit.
edit on 2010/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)