James Madison's original intent

[flaja]

Can anyone reconcile this statement by James Madison with his supposed support for states rights (namely a right to nullify federal law and secede from the Union) that came with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions?

James Madison to Edmund Randolph: “I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the states is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think, at the same time, that a consolidation of the states into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried, then, whether any middle ground can be taken, which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.” (A More Perfect Union, William Peters, Crown Publishers, Inc. New York, 1987, 0517564505)

What was Madison’s original intent- a strong federal government or a confederacy that could be dissolved on a whim?

[ClayBarham]

I believe he originally sided with Jefferson on the separations issue, though even Jefferson took a somewhat opposite position on the Louisiana Purchase. I believe, in all respects, both of them, most all of the Founders, took a position supporting individual freedom and distrust of political institutions that tended to trample on that freedom. As to how each saw ways to keep such freedoms viable is something everyone can debate, and if you carry it as far as Lincoln, it is obvious a more central government rose from his watch. It is only in the 20th century that great strides were made to disregard Madison, as well as Jefferson, Lincoln and Cleveland. The most useful debate today, as I see it, is not over how far would Madison go in accepting Hamilton's ideas, as we know he opposed him in most respects, but how far we should go in letting the whole idea of limited, small, non-intrusive government slip by in favor of the Old World styles.

[flaja]

I believe he originally sided with Jefferson on the separations issue, though even Jefferson took a somewhat opposite position on the Louisiana Purchase. I believe, in all respects, both of them, most all of the Founders, took a position supporting individual freedom and distrust of political institutions that tended to trample on that freedom. As to how each saw ways to keep such freedoms viable is something everyone can debate, and if you carry it as far as Lincoln, it is obvious a more central government rose from his watch. It is only in the 20th century that great strides were made to disregard Madison, as well as Jefferson, Lincoln and Cleveland. The most useful debate today, as I see it, is not over how far would Madison go in accepting Hamilton's ideas, as we know he opposed him in most respects, but how far we should go in letting the whole idea of limited, small, non-intrusive government slip by in favor of the Old World styles.


Would you agree that the central government has to meet conditions that the likes of Jefferson and Madison didn’t anticipate and thus by necessity has to be more powerful today that it was in their day and age?

[ClayBarham]

Yes, as it relates to national security. Even the instruments of war have changed, making preparedness essential. But, I do not see the need of about 10 cabinet secretaries and their departments doing our thinking for us, handing out our money to special interests, as if modernity demands it.

[flaja]

Yes, as it relates to national security. Even the instruments of war have changed, making preparedness essential. But, I do not see the need of about 10 cabinet secretaries and their departments doing our thinking for us, handing out our money to special interests, as if modernity demands it.


Even though I see issues like education and energy self-sufficiency as national security issues, I am not really talking in terms of national security in that the government can too easily assume greater power and violate people's civil rights when the country is on a war footing as it supposedly is now. I am talking more in terms of things like the environment and consumer protection (EPA, FDA, SEC et cetera), social welfare and economic development.

[ClayBarham]

I guess I am one of those poor slobs who believe free men and women were best at economic development, maintaining the environment, teaching their own children and all that free market nonsense, right? I still cannot understand why you consider yourself a conservative.

[flaja]

I guess I am one of those poor slobs who believe free men and women were best at economic development, maintaining the environment, teaching their own children and all that free market nonsense, right? I still cannot understand why you consider yourself a conservative.


Suppose you came down with a cold. Without government input how will you know that the medicine you go to buy is safe and effective?

Suppose a paper mill just over the state line pumps pollution into a river that flows into your state. How do you propose to deal with the situation on your own- presuming that you don’t want polluted water.

Suppose you wish to use a car that takes alternative fuel. Without some government input (tax/economic incentives for factories and infrastructure), what are the odds that you would ever be able to buy such a vehicle, let along find a filling station for it anywhere?

Suppose you wanted to buy organic groceries. Without government input what guarantee would you have that what is offered for sale as organic groceries is actually organic?

And if we can trust parents to see to it that their children get a decent education, why are private schools in Florida so full of brats suffering from ADD, that is adults didn’t discipline?

[ClayBarham]

You just convinced me. You just gave me all the liberal's reasons for not trusting people or the free market to get anything done. No doubt in my mind at all, you are NOT a conservative. Might I suggest you change your affiliation to one more genuine? Also, would the UN be the better government as you do not believe local or state governments can do anything either.

[flaja]

You just convinced me. You just gave me all the liberal's reasons for not trusting people or the free market to get anything done.

I notice that you haven’t tried to refute any of my reasons- you just erroneously label them as liberal.

How old are you? You strike me as being very young and naïve, or else you are an utter fool.

[ClayBarham]

When you boil down each of your points, you end up with the proposition that individuals are not capable on their own, apart from those who are in the "know" to run their own lives. Why did our Nation grow as it did when the people, as individuals, came first and government did not rise above them for so long after? How did they manage after the King was kicked out? History has shown they did very well, much better, in fact, than all the nations in the world where the people were never trusted to their own care. It is here where we differ. One of us is a conservative and the other is not. I have been recognized and accepted as a conservative leader for many years on the West coast, ran campaigns, including my own and passed the "test" of standing on a durable position. According to most liberals whose only response has been name-calling and insults as singular intellectual arguments, I am an utter fool. You are in good company, but not conservative company. Change your identity.

[ViolaLee]

See flaja? Being liberal is a GOOD thing. Don't believe the hype.

[flaja]

When you boil down each of your points, you end up with the proposition that individuals are not capable on their own,

This is true in the situations I outlined because of the complexity and scale of the issues involved. In the case of the alternative fuels the situation is thus: we need alternative fuels because petro-fuels are expensive and hazardous to the environment and national security. But because the entire energy industry is geared towards and dependent upon petro-fuels mere market forces cannot change this situation. Consumers cannot demand alternative fuels en masse because the market does not have the infrastructure that is needed to meet any significant demand. And because consumers cannot demand alternative fuels there is no incentive for producers to provide alternative fuels for sale.

apart from those who are in the "know" to run their own lives.

Huh?

Why did our Nation grow as it did when the people, as individuals, came first and government did not rise above them for so long after?

Huh? Are you referring to things like the Homestead Act, land-grant colleges and land grants for railroads? Or are you talking about anti-trust laws or food/medicine inspection laws? You need to either learn some history or get off your soapbox.

[PatrickHenry]

Suppose you came down with a cold. Without government input how will you know that the medicine you go to buy is safe and effective?Uhh...medical advice?

Suppose a paper mill just over the state line pumps pollution into a river that flows into your state. How do you propose to deal with the situation on your own- presuming that you don’t want polluted water.Now this is worthy of collective action. No one has an inherent right to harm the environment we all must share.

Suppose you wish to use a car that takes alternative fuel. Without some government input (tax/economic incentives for factories and infrastructure), what are the odds that you would ever be able to buy such a vehicle, let along find a filling station for it anywhere?This is an individual choice. If you choose alternative fuels, you are the one who must see to their adequacy for your transportation needs. Not the GOVERNMENT!

Suppose you wanted to buy organic groceries. Without government input what guarantee would you have that what is offered for sale as organic groceries is actually organic?Uhh... a bit of research? An independent certification agency?

And if we can trust parents to see to it that their children get a decent education, why are private schools in Florida so full of brats suffering from ADD, that is adults didn’t discipline?
I don't understand your premise on this one...

[flaja]

Suppose you came down with a cold. Without government input how will you know that the medicine you go to buy is safe and effective?Uhh...medical advice?

And just how would you know that the doctor is legit and how would he know what the drug companies have really put in the medicines they sell?

This is an individual choice. If you choose alternative fuels, you are the one who must see to their adequacy for your transportation needs. Not the GOVERNMENT!

Just how many individuals have the money needed to set up and operate something like a facility that turns sewage or MSW into methane for use as a motor fuel? How many individuals would it take to develop a process by which leaf and lawn wastes can be converted into gasoline- something that government researchers at SERI had accomplished by the early 1990s- when there were no economic incentives to do so because gas was cheap? I agree that private enterprise could have done this research, but private enterprise won’t likely do such research until there is a market demand for the end result and by the time this demand develops the private enterprise R&D is lagging too far behind to really be of any use. Because the government can marshal resources and conduct R&D without any profit motive it can help keep us ahead of the curve.

Uhh... a bit of research? An independent certification agency?

You are willing to trust people to tell you the truth when they have an economic incentive to get you to buy their product? You really believe a farmer or food processor wouldn’t lie to you? And just who sets the standards for this independent certification agency- likely the same people that want to sucker you into buying their product.

And if we can trust parents to see to it that their children get a decent education, why are private schools in Florida so full of brats suffering from ADD, that is adults didn’t discipline?
I don't understand your premise on this one...

Private schools in Florida are not regulated by law in regards to their curriculum, teacher qualifications or accreditation. Just where I live we have at least a hundred Christian academies/schools that are nothing but baby-sitting services. I lost my first teaching job at one of these schools because I refused to give good grades just to keep the parents happy and the tuition money coming in.

[PatrickHenry]

And just how would you know that the doctor is legit and how would he know what the drug companies have really put in the medicines they sell?Well, I see you trust government. I, among many other people, see no more reason to trust government than independent agencies. I don't favor government licenses for doctors. Or government certification for medicines. A free market will provide for adequate documentation for both.


Just how many individuals have the money needed to set up and operate something like a facility that turns sewage or MSW into methane for use as a motor fuel? How many individuals would it take to develop a process by which leaf and lawn wastes can be converted into gasoline- something that government researchers at SERI had accomplished by the early 1990s- when there were no economic incentives to do so because gas was cheap? I agree that private enterprise could have done this research, but private enterprise won’t likely do such research until there is a market demand for the end result and by the time this demand develops the private enterprise R&D is lagging too far behind to really be of any use. Because the government can marshal resources and conduct R&D without any profit motive it can help keep us ahead of the curve. You underestimate the funds available to develop new products, my friend. It doesn't take government input. And often gov input results in crackpot ideas like turning leaves into gasoline. Get real. That's never gonna be economically viable!

You are willing to trust people to tell you the truth when they have an economic incentive to get you to buy their product? You really believe a farmer or food processor wouldn’t lie to you? And just who sets the standards for this independent certification agency- likely the same people that want to sucker you into buying their product.I am willing to trust people, most importantly myself! Not the effen government. And I don't favor taxing everyone to create certification regimes for something that not everyone uses. I don't need the government to tell me what to eat or where to buy it!

Private schools in Florida are not regulated by law in regards to their curriculum, teacher qualifications or accreditation. Just where I live we have at least a hundred Christian academies/schools that are nothing but baby-sitting services. I lost my first teaching job at one of these schools because I refused to give good grades just to keep the parents happy and the tuition money coming in.
And your point is?

[PatrickHenry]

I don't favor government licenses for doctors. Or government certification for medicines.

How can you trust people that are always looking out for their own economic gain or are acting on immoral motives? By your standards someone could call himself a doctor and then administer cyanide as a cold remedy.

No, you are mistaken. I would like to see Board Certification and Med School degrees on the wall of a physician's office. But a license from the State government is not a requirement for me and curiously it doesn't keep quacks out of the practice of medicine. And if a "doctor" kills with a poisonous prescription, I suppose there would be criminal charges and lawsuits.

A free market will provide for adequate documentation for both.

And kill how many people in the process? You are an idiot and a fool.
Why the abuse? We just disagree, but let's be civil...

[flaja]

No, you are mistaken. I would like to see Board Certification

Who would set up this certification board? What standards would it use? How would you know that this board wouldn’t certify quacks?

[PatrickHenry]

No, you are mistaken. I would like to see Board Certification

Who would set up this certification board? What standards would it use? How would you know that this board wouldn’t certify quacks?
Maybe doctors?

Let me see if I can simplify this. Would you trust a doctor or a politician? (as a group)

Do you realize that there are Boards already? Made up of MDs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Medical_Specialties