Is the United States Broken?

FreeRepublic ^ | 4/04/2002 | B. A. Conservative

[B. A. Conservative]

There have been 26 people who responded to the initial post in this series entitled, "Not Goint to Take It Anymore". I have tried to infer their thinking regarding the underlying premise of the series: the United States as defined under our Constitution has ceased to exist. There are at least two separate population groups living within the geographical confines of the United States. The two groups have diametrically opposing views of government. There is some over-lapping of the geographic areas occupied by the two groups, but surprisingly the over-lap is less than most imagine. This makes a geo-political division between the groups feasible and perhaps desireable.

Of the 26 replies, there was only one who felt that the idea that the United States is broken was treachery or treasonous. There were four who plan to monitor these threads and who seemed undecided. Most respondents agree that the United States is in fact broken.

I am posting the first question now as its own thread to provide additional opportunities to recruit additional Freepers to participate in the discussion and for each participant to have a venue to clearly state their own opinions.

Is the United States broken?

[Teacher317]

Options:
1) Secession (I'm staring to think this is the best hope for those who love Freedom)
2) Nullification (I doubt this would work as well, but it has merits)
3) Armed Rebellion (should always be the last resort)
4) Move away (as if France offers better opportunities for Individual Liberty?)

You left out the fifth option, the one we've chosen for years...
5) Suffer some more of the abuses of government.

[B. A. Conservative]

You are correct. We have not paid sufficient detail to the role played by the Courts. Most of the liberal agenda could not have been legislatively enacted. They could not have rounded up the votes. Activist courts have been circumventing the Constitution for many decades. Each aberrant decision compounds on the prior removing us farther and farther from freedom. Instead of the last bastion of Constitutional protection, the Court became the chief dismantler of our rights and the worst federal government enabler.

[Rule of Law]

Options:

1) Secession (I'm staring to think this is the best hope for those who love Freedom)

2) Nullification (I doubt this would work as well, but it has merits)

3) Armed Rebellion (should always be the last resort)

4) Move away (as if France offers better opportunities for Individual Liberty?)

Not France. I was thinking more third worldish. There is no Bill of Rights (as if we had one here anymore). The governments are corrupt. But the governments are also inefficient. Choose the right place & you can live your life without ever knowing there is a government.

You left out the fifth option, the one we've chosen for years...

5) Suffer some more of the abuses of government.

I don't think that is going to remain an option much longer. Within 10 years, our government will erect a "Berlin Wall". Soon, they'll seal the borders "to keep terrorists out", but people will notice that it really keeps people in.

They'll have to. Too many of the productive people are leaving. Our taxes are too high and our regulations are strangling business. Soon, no one will be here to do the work required to fund the welfare state. They are already going after any money Americans keep off shore. It's only a matter of time before they stop allowing people to leave.

[B. A. Conservative]

armed rebellion
Unacceptable.

That is to leave
No realistic choices of which I am aware.

Notice I did not say that "reforming the GOP" or the "election process" are viable options.
Agreed.
Do you have other thoughts or suggestions? I am not familiar with "nullification". Could you post a link that we can all review?

[Rule of Law]

Do you have other thoughts or suggestions? I am not familiar with "nullification". Could you post a link that we can all review?

Here's Dr. Williams' article.

Also don't see why you're saying armed rebellionis unacceptable.

"Is life so dear, is peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, Give me Liberty of Give me Death!"

[stuartcr]

No, it's dynamic.

[Teacher317]

From the article... Nullification:

"One response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void, and refuse to enforce them."

Unfortunately, I think the state governments are just as bad as the federal behemoth, just on a smaller scale. Besides, can you see any state refusing to enforce the unConstitutional gun laws? I doubt even Texas would allow gang-land students to carry rifles to school again.

[B. A. Conservative]

"Within 10 years, our government will erect a "Berlin Wall". Soon, they'll seal the borders "to keep terrorists out", but people will notice that it really keeps people in."

Frightening concept and one that I had not considered. I have always known that they will be coming for IRA's and 401's before 2012, but I never really considered the idea that they would imprison us. But you are absolutely right. As unthinkable as it is, it is definitely something we might well face. Dividing the INS into two branches might even be seen as the first step.

Americans will be allowed to leave, but only empty handedly. If your assets aren't outside, the door will close on getting them out under your own control.

[Huck]

As a separate aside, every Congressman and Senator makes decisions that every American has to live with. But 99% never get to cast a ballot for or against the Congressman or Senators outside of their own districts or states respectively.

It's called Federalism. Some folks a few hundred years ago or so thought it had its merits.

I would have no problem with them being able to stay, if after two terms that had to stand for national elections.

Interesting idea, if you think more national democracy and less Federalism is a good thing.

If you are not willing to remove them from office, then I would like to have a shot at it since they are making laws that affect my life too.

Then you might as well get rid of all state governments, and all state representation, and create one giant democracy. That's what it amounts to. No thanks.

[antidisestablishment]

Ah, but it has become a semantic exercise indicative of the true state of our union. On a practical level, we are no longer states, just servants of the federal aristocracy. But, government is just a symptom, not the disease (or the cure).

However, we are truly living in the greatest period the world has ever known: peace (despite terrorism), prosperity (despite growing economic pain) and freedom (unlike the world has known). So what's really the problem?

[Rule of Law]

Americans will be allowed to leave, but only empty handedly. If your assets aren't outside, the door will close on getting them out under your own control.

At first, yes. But soon, they won't even let people go. After all, we will be slaves and who is going to let all the slaves run away?

That's why I'm looking at emigrating within the next year or two.

[tacticalogic]

Interesting idea, if you think more national democracy and less Federalism is a good thing.

As Federal control becomes more and more pervasive, it dilutes democracy at the state and local levels. When virtually every issue is decided and every policy is dictated from within the beltway, then there is really nothing left of any consequence to vote on. If there is to be any meaningful component of democracy to our system of government, the it either needs to be institued at the federal level, or the federal government needs to back off and leave some decisions to the states.

[B. A. Conservative]

Thanks for posting the link to the article on nullification. It is an intriguing concept. Most states have been as corrupted, or more properly corrupted by, the federal government through the model cities program and other carrot and stick programs. But there are few that might be candidates. I think this is definitely a topic for more detailed discussion. I hope we will hear more on this from others interested in these threads.

Patrick Henry gave us what maybe the most inspiring words ever uttered by mere mortal man. My eyes water every time I read them.

My thoughts are:

First look for a means of restoring the Constitution and forcing the government to live within it. I frankly think the viability of this approach was lost when the Republicans failed to exercise power after the 1994 elections. And I am not sure that we can recover the momentum lost before the SS and Medicare clocks run out.

Next, find a state to be first for secession. I now think nullification could be a serious alternative to this approach. It is this type of discovery for me that is one of the reasons why I originated these threads.

Armed rebellion will be surpressed. And conventional war with the United States by any other power on earth is unthinkable. But rebellion of the sort put in play by Boris Yeltsin can work. One man resisting in the state capitol of a seceding state is a powerful statement. Would Ashcroft or Bush send in tanks to kill such a man? Maybe. Would the tank commanders? Maybe. Martyrs make powerful statements in the right setting. People listen. Even if they sent the tanks the first time, I think they would listen more carefully to the second man willing to become a martyr. One thing is for sure, I know they would fear him like no other. Our people have not completely forgotten the difference between freedom and tyranny. The image of one man dying for freedom in the face of tyranny is a message unlikely to be dismissed or forgotten. The brave souls who died at the Alamo will live forever in recorded history. God forbid that we should ever be capable of forgetting.

[B. A. Conservative]

Your thinking is shallow. Incumbancy is what creates democracy. Elected officials like the power and want to keep it. They keep their seat and power by pleasing the people who sent them there. A republic is based on the premise of electing someone whose judgment and prudence we trust. We hope that their judgment will be better than our own. A republic is based on the concept that the representative is more likely to do what is right than simply what people seem to want.

By allowing perpetual re-election you guarantee democracy at the expense of doing what is right.

TERM LIMITS breaks the link with electorate thereby preventing mob rule. The term limited representative knows that he and his family are going to have to live with the consequences of his votes. Perpetual election ensures that they are above the law.

One thing I can absolutely guarantee you to be true, we would not be in the mess we are in if TERM LIMITS for members of Congress and the federal judiciary had been part of the original constitution. And the United States cannot be saved without this addition.

[B. A. Conservative]

"However, we are truly living in the greatest period the world has ever known: peace (despite terrorism), prosperity (despite growing economic pain) and freedom (unlike the world has known). So what's really the problem?"

YOU are confusing prospects with reality. In the past two hundred years, how many Americans have been killed by foreign powers on our own soil? Granted it has been more than a hundred years since the United States attacked it's own citizens, but it has only been a matter of months since Ruby Ridge, Waco, and little Elian.

And yes the rest of the world has been, to a degree, following the role model set by the US in terms of granting more freedom to its citizens. But in our country, the citizens granted limited powers to the government. Now the government is stripping those freedoms away from the people. Look at the hundreds if not thousands of pounds of laws and regulations that have been passed in the last seventy years. Do you think those have made you more free? Those pounds of paper are links in the chains that are enslaving us.

And as for the illusion of prosperity, you are only looking at the asset side of the ledger. The US is now the largest debtor in the history of the world. Our savings rate is the lowest in history. Government debt at all levels of government is at all time highs. Corporate debt is at an all time high. Mortgage debt is at an all time high. Credit card debt is at an all time high. On a per centage basis US net worth is at an all time low. When the home loan program to foster home ownership was passed in the 50's, home equity was at 57% of individual net worth. Fifty years later, it has fallen below 50%, home equity has actually declined. Americans have been consuming their savings and capital base. And unless we are very lucky, a lot of that debt is going to produce a mountain of bankruptcies. Most people like to allow for a margin of safety. Thanks to Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan, most Americans have already consumed it or had their government take it away and give it to someone else.

[Huck]

As Federal control becomes more and more pervasive, it dilutes democracy at the state and local levels.

I agree. Tell it to BA Conservative. He's the one who wants to nationalize Senatorial elections.

[sheltonmac]

bump

[Huck]

Every elected official is elected by the people. If the people cannot be trusted to choose, then get rid of voting altogether and call the whole thing off.

[tacticalogic]

I agree. Tell it to BA Conservative. He's the one who wants to nationalize Senatorial elections.

You seem to agree with it only insofar as you perceive it to support your position against BA. You agree with the premise, but you oppose democracy at the federal level, and don't seem to think that the federal government is in any particular need of being reigned in.

[Huck]

You agree with the premise, but you oppose democracy at the federal level, and don't seem to think that the federal government is in any particular need of being reigned in.

I agree that democracy at the Fed level dilutes democracy at the state and local levels. I favor state and local influence over federal, therefore, I oppose an expansion of federal influence such as increased national elections or national control over state elections.

I have not said that the federal government shouldn't be reigned in. I have said that the tools necessary are all in good working order. The system is not broken. It works. If there is a problem with the results, it is due to the limits of human nature. But, there's always tomorrow.