This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Neo-Feudalism Has Officially Arrived – Congressman Suggests Building A Moat Around White House
Once again, Zero Hedge was just a bit ahead of its time. From September 22:
Moat? RT @fiatcurrency: Snipers, Guards, Fences Not Enough: Secret Service Mulls Security Checkpoints Outside WH http://t.co/Vou49LA68M
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 22, 2014
And now, fast forward to today, and this submission by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
What has been occurring over the past several years is not a recovery, rather, it’s a painful transition of the U.S. into a neo-feudal society. Earlier this week in the post, Welcome to the Recovery – U.S. Child Homelessness Hits Record as Poverty in Mass. is Highest Since 1960, I wrote:
While the general population is aware something is seriously wrong, people remain extremely confused about the root of the problem. This is because what’s happening all around us isn’t socialism and it isn’t free market capitalism. It is actually a return to something much more ancient and much more oppressive. It is a return to serfdom, neo-feudalism and oligarchy.
Well now we have definitive proof. It can’t get any more in your face than this.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch)—Faced with an increasing number of White House intrusions that led to the resignation of a Secret Service director, a congressman on Wednesday suggested that maybe a moat should be erected around the president’s home.
The suggestion was made by Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, at a House Judiciary Committee hearing.
With hand gestures, Cohen suggested a moat roughly six-feet wide may be “attractive” and “effective.”
Joseph Clancy, the acting director of the Secret Service, didn’t dismiss the suggestion out of hand.
“Sir, it may be,” he said. Clancy said the Secret Service and the National Park Service were discussing ways to ensure security along with access to the White House for the American people.
In case you aren’t familiar with Steve Cohen, I covered his fascist tendencies in the past. Recall the post: Rep. Steve Cohen Calls Tea Party Republicans “Domestic Enemies” on MSNBC.
Here’s the moat clip:
We wonder where he got that idea from?
Moat? RT @fiatcurrency: Snipers, Guards, Fences Not Enough: Secret Service Mulls Security Checkpoints Outside WH http://t.co/Vou49LA68M
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 22, 2014
Enjoy your serfdom!!
»
- 24102 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
<--- A State votes for Seccession within 3 years.
<--- Not gonna happen.
A moat around the White House is a great idea. Better yet, build a 30 foot wall topped with barbed wire around the WH, to protect we the public from the criminals within.
Excellent suggestion. An impervious 30 foot wall. An then fill the bitch with water.
<- With alligators?
<- Sharks with frikken laser beams?
Pluse a HAARP machine to whip up some Sharknados
I nominate Snake Plisskin for head of the Secret Service
We want the White House to APPEAR open and accessible, but not to really BE open and accessiible. Just like our Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, Executive branch departments, etc etc.
Most transparently feudalistic government ever.
Yeah, that'll work in the age of drones. These people are dumbasses first and tyrants second.
Goes to show how fucking PARANOID the Gubmint's getting these days!
Cause they know the SHTF soon and they'll be dragged through the streets to the Guillotines!
Oh if only..
Envisioning that just made my day a little bit brighter...sigh.
But remember..
Just because they're paranoid.
Doesn't mean nobody is out to get them!
"Cohen suggested a moat roughly six-feet wide may be “attractive” and “effective.”
This new moat would not stop people 6'-1" from crossing?
ISIS want ad: Looking for 6'-1" and taller jihadists for short term work.
Or midgets with 8 foot ladders?
Or if they wore scuba gear?
Or the typically obese American who would just float across?
Or jihadist beavers?
Better keep it filled with gasoline set aflame!
I think it was during Andrew Jackson's second inaugural party that he had to jump out of a window in the WH to get away from revelers.
Thnigs certainly have changed.
I'll catapult an Ebola infected body over your six foot moat, and call your hand.
What else you got?
In the days of yore....
Moats were also where all the sewage was dumped to discourage invaders from swimming or crossing towards the castle.
Considering the current occupants, I have no problem with a 200 ft wide moat around the White House.
Let me know when it was finished and I shall drive up there and contribute by eating 2 lbs of chili and spray and shit until I can do it no more to help keep those evil white Tea Partiers from swimming across the moat to mock the Wookie and her husband.
I shall call my campaign the
"Shit for Security and Safety"
or a "turd for anti-terrorism."
Let us start promoting this now and perhaps, just perhaps, P&G can sponsor it and provide us with free Charmin for the poop party.
And here is what happens if you DARE to speak out against the Emperor:
Billionaire Steve Wynn Finds out Why One Does not Attack our Emperor the Hard Way
Yeah, sure... a Jewish casino oligarch getting convicted of anything in the U.S.
The ADL would go nuclear and AIPAC would start gassing congessmen.
Wynn was just pissed because the US wouldn't bail out his loser Israeli developer pals in Las Vegas. They were going to name the complex after Wynn.
So I'm driving up towards the the White House and the traffic is jammed solid. In the distance I can see smoke rising. A guy is walking down the street talking to motorists so I call him over.
"What's going on?" I ask.
"Oh, the White House is on fire. So I'm asking motorists here if they can help, see if they can contribute something."
"Really? What have you got so far?"
"Oh, so far I guess thirty gallons of 87 octane, maybe forty gallons of 95."
Maybe the moat isn't actually about security, but about soliciting some investment from Warren Buffett.
den dey ca see da wifes and d'chillens heads arreddy in d' basket...
I guess Mr. Cohen isn't all that athletic?
6 feet wide? Sounds like an idea that comes from the government.
pods
Yeah I wondered about that too.
What they really want is patrolling armed men atop a wall. But that would be too obvious. We need to build a wall to keep actual citizens out of the WH etc (wouldn't want people expecting access to their government for redress of grievances, after all), but not to stop illegals from crossing the border.
They could use some German Chep-erds (Cesar speak) too.
pods
If the Secret Service really wanted to deter fence jumpers.....
They would post large banners of the Wookiee's butt out on the lawn.
Scares the hell out of me!
Build a moat and a wall. Then don't let anything in and don't let anything out. It might be contaminated. Build a great big Faraday cage over the top of it too, just to make sure no ideas escape. (err, do they work inside out? I guess they do. I should know the answer to that question but I don't, and I can't be bothered working it out right now.)
Using fine wire mesh, 1/4" or so it wouldn't make any diff which side of the wire was "in" or "out". Faraday cages are "non-directional". That way the denizens inside can be secure from EMPs and such other bothersome things.
People at the top of closed societies and organizations nearly always overthink everything. I'm thinking that the folks inside such a Faraday cage, ie the Inner Party, given that they ARE government wonks, would eventually decide to set off EMPs to destroy the Outer Party's and the Prole's ability to rebel, thus destroying the possibility of a rebellion, and having done so, the Inner Party would also be unable to communicate with the rest of the country as they'd have the ONLY functional radios, TVs & etc in the nation. So the people wouldn't have to listen to the politicians anymore. :-)
Glad the Zil is EMP-shielded.
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Yes, but then they can rebuild it later making it 12' wide, stimulating GDP in the process.
Bullish!
The alligators will have a hard time with the winter freezes, and a six-foot wide moat really won't be enough to make them comfortable. So I suggest widening the moat, adding a nice tilapia pond to it (because alligators love to eat fish), using the tilapia pond to treat the sewage from the White House, and connecting the moat to an indoor alligator pool which could be heated in the winter for the alligators, and could be connected to the Oval Office, so that the President can invite visiting bankers to help him feed the alligators, and occasionally dive in and eat some of the alligators.
"using the tilapia pond to treat the sewage from the White House"
I see a potential project-killer here... I don't think that there's enough fish available, the moat couldn't be made to the scale necessary for the requirements here.
hee hee. Yeah, I see. Need WAY MORE tilapia. :-)
Alligators..with lasers attached to their freakin' heads.
Nuke it from outer space - it's only way we can be sure.
You just never know where one of those meteors is going to strike.
Fill it with water at an exponential rate. So they can understand the financial fraud system first hand.
Concrete would be better.
No, it isn't.
You don't want a Russian submarine that close to the WH, do you?
How many of us would piss in the moat as a form of civil disobedience?
The Washington Pee Party.
They could fill it with those horrifying miniature catfish that swim up the pee stream straight into your dickhole. Oh the humanity!
Don'tstick things in urethra!
one hole, or da other, dey got it up ya comin' and goin'...
Move the White House to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, so Barry can deal in person with his organ grinders.
Why not cut out the middlemen and plant it right next to the Knesset?
How can you tell when the Peasants revolt in California?
When you hear "The Serf's Up!"
A moat around the Whitehouse?.... That's just ducky.
How about, this time, instead of secession, we just reboot the federal government?
Haha, how about we use boots on a lot of backsides?
you would think that there would be enough pissed of military to handle the illegal activity happening in the house of the people.
They aren't brave enough to bite the hand that feeds them. I don't blame them for that position. It's the peasants that have let this country devolve to a totalitarian regime, it'll be the peasants who fix the mess.
It usually is, but not without much anguish in the meantime... those types of changes always start long after the pain of the status quo becomes unbearable. We aren't there yet... Frankly, we're not even close, all things equal.
Worst, if somehow the experiment works, then we may have witnessed an entire world that chose to give up autonomy for a few measly creature comforts; a terrible bargain if you ask me. Even if this experiment doesn't work, it will be analyzed, understood, and improved upon for the next time. We're inching towards something...
This would be a very natural and necessary part of the re-boot process... at least if there's any justice in the world.
Yes, because starting over with the exact same form of government will work *this time;* the lobbyists will resign, Congress will behave, the President will honor liberty in everything he does, and of course our unelected oligarchs at SCOTUS will see the error of their way and will abrogate the judicial review doctrine.
Who said anything about "the exact same form of government"?
How about we go BACK to the form of government this nation had prior to the advent of "American System" economics?
If the States declare "judicial review", "incorporation doctrine", the 14A, 17A & 16A null and void, and set up a mechanism whereby they control the size and scope of the federal government, we won't have "the exact same" anything.
Wished I had more up votes for that comment.
Just overturning or legislating Wickard out of existance would be huge. I swear, that is, IMHO, probably the worst USSC decision still in effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Exactly right - it laid the foundation for judicial review that began to ignore the plain language and legislative history to "find a way" to give the Feds more power {to do some thing X or Y which progressives figured only government power could achieve}
As for the idiots blaming the Constitution for the fact the government stopped following the Constitution - no document can force a government to adhere to it. You need to consider the philosophical concept of agency. Blaming the Constitution for the Government's march toward tyranny is a category mistake.
The fault is the agent - the people in government who crave more and more power. Secondary fault is attributable to the public, which has been lulled to sleep with promises of free shit for decades, and has let the Bill of Rights and concept of limited, enumerated powers be morphed into an Imperial Presidency and Quasifascist Congress controlled by banks, the MIC, and Israel.
Well-said.
Prior to the point when the federal government really began to exceed its constitutional authority (personally, I see that turning point as the day Lincoln unilaterally granted himself the authority to threaten, provoke and wage war on U.S. Citizens, but YMMV), the U.S. embodied something very close to a physical manifestation of the Free Marketplace of Ideas.
That is, if one found the policies and attitudes in one's State unpalatable, one was free to migrate to another State (or, back then, a Territory) that was more acceptable. All the imperfection of humanity applied, of course, but one person's (or one group's) imperfections didn't overly influence the destinies of every Citizen in the country, the way they do today under hyper-centralized governance.
IMHO, the free market is just as capable of selecting the most appropriate form of governance as it is in selecting the best hair care product. And whether or not it was intentional (I believe it was), this is the arrangement that the combination of Art. I, Sec. 10 and the 10A facilitated. That was lost in 1868 and years subsequent, leading to where we are now. The basic choices are to either let the federal government collapse, and hope (against hope, given the geopolitics today) that some structure can be resurrected from the ensuing chaos, or work to replace the current, corrupted monstrosity with something that more closely resembles the pre-"Reconstruction" federal government.
If/when this shit finally does collapse - I'm not sure if the resources or capital exist to ever exert the same kind of control over the States that the FedGov now enjoys (said hopefully).
The resources and capital will always exist to exert control... and, generally speaking, power tends to consolidate. If it's not one, it will be another.
There's no harm in an individuals's "prepping" for hard times, but there is likely no good outcome from any individual act of "anti-ZOG" violence (though non-violent resistance can be fun).
If there is any hope for the future of "America" it lies with the States. Unless and until one or more States draw a line in the sand re federal power, the only viable course for residents of the USA is to minimize their participation in the US economic system.
And, perhaps, pray.
Or we could have just kept the Articles of Confederation and killed the Consttutional coup d'tat.
Someone who gets it...wish I had more upvotes for you.
I wish User Zero would actually read the AoC; then maybe he could grasp why we live in a constiutional police state.
I'd have to go with "Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad" (1886) as the worst USSC decision still in effect, since this is the decision that is used to defend "corporate personhood" and the joys that have descended from it ever since.
Sorry, that would be Taney in the Dred Scott decision.
Citxmech: Just overturning or legislating Wickard out of existance would be huge. I swear, that is, IMHO, probably the worst USSC decision still in effect.
THANK YOU For that link. I was unaware of this insidious decision. BULL SHIT.Not going to happen. Thanks to the USCON's unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce, we all get to live in a constituional police state.
If the States declare "judicial review", "incorporation doctrine", the 14A, 17A & 16A null and void, and set up a mechanism whereby they control the size and scope of the federal government, we won't have "the exact same" anything.
If you guys just listen to me, then everything will be OK. The lack of humility is fairly astounding. Here's a hint about the relatively short future of your proposal, what happened the first time this scenario was implemented? There are things that have to change even more fundamentally than what you're proposing to effectuate your goals... or, maybe you're just near sighted...
Your comment is way beyond the grasp of the Constitution-worshippers...wish I had more upvotes for it.
given that we have been witnessing "history" being hidden, revised, rewritten, even blatantly lied about,
it's interesting how some folks simply choose their favourite tale to promote - whilst ignoring the actual paths and destinations that "history" has actually traveled.
to believe it can be wrested from the tight hands of those who have held the reins historically is to not recognise the place we've arrived at, nor how/why.
guaranteed to repeat. doomed to, in fact.
"There are things that have to change even more fundamentally"
Of that I have no doubt.
The current "public education" paradigm is one example.
Beyond that, I don't see you making any constructive proposals, or expending much effort to develop an actual solution that doesn't include shooting people, just a lot of contrarian argument for its own sake.
Do you think discussing the details of the best form of government on the comment section of a financial blog is a "constructive proposal"? Further, in order to rightfully criticize your ideas, it is not necessary for me to present my own...
Yes, I think it's very constructive. The problems this country faces are intrinsically bound up in economics. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be commenting on a post discussing neo-feudalism.
Unless you're happy with the status quo, which seems unlikely, criticism implies that you have an alternative in mind. As for yours, much of it has been of the straw-man variety, so I don't see that as "criticism", per se.
"The problems this country faces are intrinsically bound up in economics."
It's about RESOURCES! And ALL empires/civilizations COLLAPSE when they run out of resources. "economics" is but our attempt to distribute/allocate resources. Talking about "economics" tends to ride on top of the assumption that resources will always be there.
Again, a 3-4 thousand year study pretty much pushes back on your notion of us being able to defeat the odds:
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814.html
Then that's not rebooting the feds.
Not sure how you reboot a computer, but for the rest of us it doesn't involve installing a new OS. What you are describing is secession.
If you're only capable of thinking in concrete, literal terms, when you reboot a computer, all of the currently-running applications are terminated and the OS comes back up fresh.
Re-booting, in this case, would include eliminating the virus applications that have infected, bogged down and corrupted the running system over the last 150 years, essentially taking it back to its original, limited, constitutional form.
If it helps you to think of it as restoration of a backup to when the OS was initially installed, then feel free to do that instead.
No. I'm not describing "secession". I'm describing restoration.
Unless each and every state agrees to proceed, which I think is highly unlikely, then you're necessarily advocating secession. Ask yourself this question, if the constitutional framers had to choose a word to describe what you're advocating, then what would it be?
"if the constitutional framers had to choose a word to describe what you're advocating, then what would it be?"
Well, that's a good question.
Remember - Art. VII specified quite clearly that each and every State DID NOT have to agree to proceed with the original Constitution in order for it to be valid. The legitimacy of the general government defined by the Constitution was predicated on the ratification of ~3/4ths of the then-existing States.
So, based on the precedent you've selected, the answer to your question is pretty simple. The word would be: Amendment. In this case, an Amendment to restore and preserve the legitimacy of the general government.
So, amendment is the necessary term, but re-boot is what is used... ok.
Further, when all the cards are on the table, do you really think that states who disagree with the proposal will simply abide by the notion that they're legally bound to follow the demands of the majority? Do you even accept the level of crisis that would be necessary to get to the point of viably, politcally addressing your proposal?
Re-booting, in this case, would include eliminating the virus applications
No, all of those laws you are crying about are rooted in the USCON's "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses. Rebooting does nothing to address those grants of unlimited power.
I've thought about this. The Constitution was the culmination of a lot of good stuff like Magna Carta but ultimately it failed. We don't need to go back to the Republic. I don't think that will work at this point. This government has passed the point of return and will have to die rather than be reformed.
I think we should go forward to a Federation after this government fails and dies. We need something that would make a Federal Reserve, and 16th and 17th amendments completely impossible. There has got to be plain and strong language saying gold and silver are money and the use of fiat cannot be enforced by any government through taxation or threat of force.
"This government has passed the point of return and will have to die rather than be reformed. "
I agree. Without any effort to avoid that uncontrolled chaos, it is unavoidable. But then, I'm not talking about "reform". I'm talking about restoration (e.g., controlled chaos), which is a different idea.
The present mode of most Americans' thinking, thanks to a century of "Progressive" mentality that has obsessively focused all U.S. Citizens' attention on the federal level, is that if we only elect the "right" politicians to Congress, etc., that the federal government can somehow be "fixed". This is, of course, nonsense. That institution has done exactly as you describe and, if anything, has to be replaced. It can't be fixed, per se.
There are several ways to accomplish that replacement. They range from a shooting war somewhat reminiscent of 1861-65, to a constitutionally-based, State-level movement that culminates in the replacement of the current, corrupt federal government with something closer to what existed prior to 1860. The guarantees you recommend could then be implemented through the Amendment process, and I think they should be.
So most Americans are hopelessly naive, due to a "century" of progressive conditioning, that simply electing one person or another will change things... but, accepting that the democratic process is broken and that most Americans cannot make an intelligent political decision, the same political process should be utilized to implement a constitutional amendment repealing the last 150 years or so of laws... got it...
PS, are you seriously trying to draw a distinction between "reform" and "restoration"? You've got to be shitting me. And I thought your attempt to walk the tightrope with "re-boot" was perilous... "Controlled chaos"... English motherfucker, do you speak it.
"the same political process should be utilized"
No. There is no precedent in U.S. History for a process by which the States take back power and authority that has been usurped by the federal government. That would require a new process. It would also, by definition, awaken millions of Americans to issues that they presently either don't understand (like how the monetary system works, for instance) or aren't even aware of (like how the monetary system works, for instance).
"implement a constitutional amendment repealing the last 150 years or so of laws"
No. Laws that don't meet the new de-centralized paradigm can be reviewed, amended and repealed as the need arises.
Just curious, you said, "There has got to be plain and strong language saying gold and silver are money and the use of fiat cannot be enforced by any government through taxation or threat of force."
Wouldn't that also imply taxes would have to be paid in gold or silver, as well?
Or would governments accept unicorn skittles as payment in lieu.
"you said"
I wasn't the one who suggested that, no. I believe that was tarsubil.
Thanks, I apperently chose the wrong "reply" link.
And if the supply of gold and silver runs out, then no more taxes can be paid. Many citizens might like that idea.
No. There is no precedent in U.S. History for a process by which the States take back power and authority that has been usurped by the federal government. That would require a new process. It would also, by definition, awaken millions of Americans to issues that they presently either don't understand (like how the monetary system works, for instance) or aren't even aware of (like how the monetary system works, for instance).
Can you articulate a practical difference between this and the american revolution? You say that there isn't a precedent, but either: (a) there is; or (b) there never will be, based upon a strained use of the word. Wouldn't the state legalization of marijuana fit your bill?
No. Laws that don't meet the new de-centralized paradigm can be reviewed, amended and repealed as the need arises.
And this is a material improvement how? Isn't that what we can currently do? It might help to address the reason of why this hasn't already occurred... and, speaking from induction, why it tends not to occur or, alternatively, result in what you want.
There is no precedent in U.S. History for a process by which the States take back power and authority that has been usurped by the federal government.
Yes there is. It's called "secession." Worked for CSA and the USA, it'll work again.
My point is simply, you want to restore something that led to this. You want to restore what failed. I don't see the point.
I understand. And it's a fair point. I disagree with it.
IMHO, the Constitution - as written - did not lead to what we have today. If that were the case, one could look at the dysfunctional federal government we have (and the State governments that have been corrupted and broken as a result), and say, "well, it all meets the letter of the Constitiution, so... Constitution bad". You can't do that, because it's not true. The present structure and function of the federal government today is so far outside the definition specified in the Constitution that it bears practically no resemblance to the original definition.
Violation and specious interpretation of the Constitution, lack of accountability and, most importantly, widespread ignorance among the U.S. Citizenry, promoted by the federal government itself (for obvious reasons), is what led to this. Letting the whole thing collapse of its own weight won't "fix" it. The result of that "approach" is completely indeterminate (i.e., "chaos").
I agree to disagree. Not the one voting.
I see things going sour around 1910 but even before that the Federal government was too strong. Now that the US territory is established, there really is no point to having any kind of strong Federal government like detailed in the Constitution.
"even before that the Federal government was too strong"
Exactly. The seeds of omnipotent government were sown in the 14th Amendment, whereby the Citizens of every State were conscripted into a "national citizenry", and the federal government imposed an "equal protection" racket predicated on the absurd notion of shielding Citizens from their own State governments. In fact, this was merely an excuse to usurp civil authority, and it ultimately rendered State governments superfluous, eventually subjecting the entire country to lowest-common-denomiator governance and, ultimately, neo-feudalism. The financial means by which this was factilitated was affected in the 16A and further limits on State sovereignty which might resist this effort were imposed by the 17A.
Meh, the War of 1812 happened before the 14th amendment and it tipped off that the Federal government had too much power. There is no reason today it needs such power.
And here you are, complaining about the USCON. Make up your mind. The USCON has the power to amend itself, have to take the good with the bad, right?
No, this is why his view on the constitution has boiled over into religion...
IMHO, the Constitution - as written - did not lead to what we have today.
Thankfully there is a four day weekend coming up so you have no excuse not to actually read the USCON.
Hint: pay special attention to the "general welfare" clause, the "regulate interstate commerce" clause, the "lay and collect taxes" clause, and Article 3 section 2.
Thanks to all those powers, we live in a police state. (And that doesn't even include the great power the USCON has to amend itself which gave us such gems as the 14th and 16th amendments.)
Still leaves the power to provide for the general welfare and regulate interestate commerece which accounts for 99%+ of all tyrannical laws.
Articles of Confederation didn't have this problem, but its built into the USCON.
Pure human hubris at work...
You lambast others while putting out what amounts to an equally absurd proposal.
Come on, I want to hear from you how you think that the seemingly genetically programmed desitiny as given through 3-4 thousand years of human rule (western) can be overcome:
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814.html
We're only peaceful when we have adequate resources. I don't care what form of "government," what "wonderful documents" might exist, when it comes to survival (as resources continue to diminish) it AIN'T going to hold up.
"How about we go BACK to the form of government this nation had prior to the advent of "American System" economics?"
Because there's BILLIONS more people on the planet and a lot LESS resources. Everyone back in the days of reaping the spoils (from the conquest of the natives) everyone was happy as there was plenty to go around.
Further, "going back" doesn't CHANGE history, the same history (based on the same "good old days") that got us where we are.
If you cannot get it, then here, take a look at what a meaningful look at human history shows (the pattern is pretty obvious, and it'l pretty much demonstrate why the "let's go back to the good old days" ain't going to work):
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814.html
If the States declare "judicial review", "incorporation doctrine", the 14A, 17A & 16A null and void
That's unconstitutional, brother, sorry. Need to terminate the USCON and replace with something like the Articles of Confederation.
How about, this time, instead of secession, we just reboot the federal government?
Do you really think anything different happens during a revolution? Meet the new boss.
Where did you read anything about "revolution" in my comment?
Re-boot, as in, THE STATES passing an Amendment outlining how they strip the federal government back to a constitutional size and scope.
The new boss is never any different, that's true. But 50+ competing bosses is something else entirely, and that's what the Constitution was intended to facilitate. It worked pretty well until 1868.
Yes, how could I not perfectly understand the vagueness that is "re-boot." It's also swell of you to dictate what is and is not constitutional... Tell me, practically speaking, what would be the difference between a "revolution" and a "re-boot"? Would the revolutionaries, if successful, not have to implement a new form of government? Would the revolutionaries necessarily have to engage in combat to achieve their ends? Isn't that something that may come about as the result of a proposed amendment dramatically changing how the country operates and pitting one state against the other (remember, some are dependents upon that same federal government, some are not)? What is the difference...
A re-boot would be a constitutional process whereby the States pass an Amendment outlining the mechanism(s) by which the size and scope of the federal government are kept in check. Your fantasies about "revolutionaries" would not apply in this scenario.
The goal of this process would be to eliminate ALL of the facets of the "American System" (read: neo-feudalist) economic agenda, including central banking, fiat currency, federal income tax, Hamiltonian crony capitalism, et al., which have led us to where we are today - essentially, a return to a limited federal government, of a size and scope on par with that of roughly 1858 (and please, don't be so juvenile as to ask "should we also re-institute slavery while we're at it?").
The intended result would be reinstatement of a physical manifestation of the Free Marketplace of Ideas, where States would compete at the level of civil governance for the best form of social organization, while the federal government would be limited to the enumerated authority and scope originally specified in the Constitution. No more of this "implied powers" nonsense. No more robbing Texas to pay for California's socially suicidal policies.
This would include the elmiination of the elements at the federal level which are abused so commonly, like "incorporation doctrine", the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments, "judicial review" and executive-branch, independent regulatory agencies which are illegally delegated Art I legislative authority on a regular basis.
It would also include wholesale federal elections (and replacement of SCOTUS and Cabinet) on a vote of no-confidence by some super-majority of the States' legislatures (somewhat like what's done in the UK parliament), as well as elimination of federal agencies on the same basis. Basically, take what's been learned over the past 150 years and apply it to a pro-active correction.
So bolding boot this time is supposed to change the substance of what you're arguing? Look, what you're advocating is secession/revolution. I strongly suspect that it could all be accomplished without a single shot fired... but it doesn't change the fact that whatever you are choosing to call it, i.e. a "re-boot," is merely form, and the substance of your argument is secession/revolution and the implementation of a new government. The status quo will not allow itself to be divested of power... what then?
Further, there are not enough states, sufficiently financially independent of the federal government, to ratify an amendment... again, what then?
If you're advocating a limited federal government, then you'll probably get universal support from this site. However, please don't pretend you know how to herd cats. This line of thinking is what got us here. My question remains, what would you hope to accomplish with these changes?
"what you're advocating is secession/revolution."
No. It's not.
"The status quo will not allow itself to be divested of power... what then?"
That depends on what the States decide to do next.
"there are not enough states, sufficiently financially independent of the federal government, to ratify an amendment"
The question isn't whether or not they're currently independent, the question is whether or not they'd be better off without the federal government's boot on their Citizens' necks and hands in their pockets. It doesn't require much imagination to envision a shift in financial independence once most federal taxation schemes are redirected.
"If you're advocating a limited federal government, then you'll probably get universal support from this site."
That's what I'm advocating. The problem is that wishing doesn't make it so. Action is required. Limited federal government will only be achieved by reducing the size and scope of the current monstrosity. That can either happen constitutionally, through controlled chaos, or violently, through collapse and outright chaos. The latter is our present course; I prefer the former. YMMV.
That depends on what the States decide to do next.
No shit. What is your expectation?
The question isn't whether or not they're currently independent, the question is whether or not they'd be better off without the federal government's boot on their Citizens' necks and hands in their pockets. It doesn't require much imagination to envision a shift in financial independence once most federal taxation schemes are redirected.
Yes. But you're missing why the system is the way it is... that some people (and states) benefit from the status quo and will fight to protect it. This is why economic models are inherently innacurate, they refuse to accept the levels rational actors will go to avoid the normalization of profit.
That's what I'm advocating. The problem is that wishing doesn't make it so. Action is required. Limited federal government will only be achieved by reducing the size and scope of the current monstrosity. That can either happen constitutionally, through controlled chaos, or violently, through collapse and outright chaos. The latter is our present course; I prefer the former. YMMV.
So, it's your thesis that we should dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government despite record wealth inequality. That's a great plan... for a few folks, but I strongly suspect that the future you would create is not what you envision. Further, there is no such thing as controlled chaos, to think otherwise is pure hubris. Boiling down your thesis, it appears you're under the impression that entrenched power simply hangs up the spurs, shakes your hand, and walks off into the sunset... well, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I think that the failure lies in the disconnect between our man-made virtual world and that of the physical world (which is responsible for sustaining us). When people fail to understand or consider the physical world they tend to come up with all sorts of grandiose notions (which might SOUND good, but they are doomed to failure for their lack of basis in the physical world).
Humans are animals. Animals will fight to survive, and that instinct doesn't come from some written set of words/codes. Tensions are rising because we have hidden scarcity (stole from the future to keep the Growth Ponzi going).
"It worked pretty well until 1868."
You admit its a failed document, yet you want to keep trying to use it? Let me guess: you vote GOP because "this time will be different?"
"50+ competing bosses is something else entirely, and that's what the Constitution was intended to facilitate."
That is so far from reality, you are either confusing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution or you haven't the faintest idea what's actually in the Constitution.
"You admit its a failed document"
Did I? Where did I admit that?
What I observe is that we don't have a critical mass of U.S. Citizens well-educated enough to understand and support it in a way that prevents the abuses and usurpations one witnesses by examining the last 150 years of U.S. History.
The Constitution was never intended to replace State-level governments. Had that been the case, no State would have ratified it prior to 1860. As such, yes, it was absolutely intended to promote competition between States at the level of civil governance. How it's been "interpreted" and abused since is a function of an electorate too ill-informed to recognize how they're being abused.
What I observe is that we don't have a critical mass of U.S. Citizens well-educated enough to understand and support it in a way that prevents the abuses and usurpations one witnesses by examining the last 150 years of U.S. History.
Holy christ you're naive... A critical mass of U.S. Citizens DON'T WANT TO BE "EDUCATED"... could not give less of a fuck.... just let the checks keep rolling in, and this goes for the top and the bottom.
Further, at what point in history has a critical mass of any country, as large and diverse, been "well-educated"? If only you could sit down with each one of them for a day and educate them... Maybe you could plan their curriculum?
The Constitution was never intended to replace State-level governments. Had that been the case, no State would have ratified it prior to 1860. As such, yes, it was absolutely intended to promote competition between States at the level of civil governance. How it's been "interpreted" and abused since is a function of an electorate too ill-informed to recognize how they're being abused.
How it's been interpreted (even the need to interpret it) is a function of the Constitution... this is the whole point... it is a failed document. We don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, there are plenty of good ideas in there, but you're trying to put the pussy on a pedestal...
"A critical mass of U.S. Citizens DON'T WANT TO BE "EDUCATED"... could not give less of a fuck..."
Exactly the outcome to be expected from a federally-controlled, public-sector-union-administered, bureaucracy-laden, compulsory public "education" system that is designed to produce serfs, not Citizens.
"it is a failed document."
No. Any document that can be amended, as the Constitution was expressly designed to be, only "fails" when those proponents of the ideals it was intended to establish give up in their efforts to enhance it based on what history has taught them.
Ultimately, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper. It's society that has to make it work. So what you're really saying here is that society has failed. But even that's not really accurate, because there are still plenty of people exerting effort to correct the present, doomed course.
Exactly the outcome to be expected from a federally-controlled, public-sector-union-administered, bureaucracy-laden, compulsory public "education" system that is designed to produce serfs, not Citizens.
Newsflash, it's practically the same everywhere... throughout the entirety of history.
No. Any document that can be amended, as the Constitution was expressly designed to be, only "fails" when those proponents of the ideals it was intended to establish give up in their efforts to enhance it based on what history has taught them.
Ultimately, the Constitution really is just a piece of paper. It's society that has to make it work. So what you're really saying here is that society has failed. But even that's not really accurate, because there are still plenty of people exerting effort to correct the present, doomed course.
Some of the persons who had material influence in the drafting didn't expect the document to last more than a couple decades (even advocated for it to die). Ultimately, a document that can be amended, can likewise be corrupted (although I completely dispute any implication that it had pure intentions to start... it's a neat bedtime story, but that's about the extent of it).
You keep shooting yourself in the foot... here is a logical vise: if society has to police itself and create the society everyone wants, regardless of the underlying legal documents giving birth to how society is to act, then what the fuck does a constitution matter? This goes back to one of my first points regarding human nature... people do as they please and documents are merely suggestions along the way.
If you're wed to the ideals, then great... write a novel... but herding cats is another game altogether and I strongly doubt some sheets of paper will help in the process. If you want to keep arguing form over substance, go ahead, however you'll be left with nothing but a superficial victory.
"Did I? Where did I admit that?"
Does it fucking matter if you did or didn't? FACT: it IS a failed document.
Ideologies don't mean squat to the survival of empires:
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814.html
Further, the last time all was "good" was when the land-o-plenty was made available through the shedding of a lot of blood.
When every other decision is made by money-changer, what else do you expect from them. Welcome to Ameristine
....ruled as a vassal state of Rothslandia.
Democrats, libs, progressives amd MeoCons are fascist scum.
Yet many of you let some strange ideology cloud your worldview so much that you actually support most of this. The country was stolen by a small group of men and you defended their right to do it because of "free market", "capitalism" and "contract law". Happy now?!
And they blindly think they can avoid the inevitable:
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814.html
Most folks around here are totally incapable of understanding that the failed concept that the exponential function not only applies to money-printing, that it also applies to resource extraction/consumption (for which all of our systems base their "growth" on).
Human hubris...
It may not be an official vote, but rather people will simply stop sending money and blood to D.C.
hedge accordingly
Six feet for a moat? Thats a fucking ditch. A moat needs to be at least 20 feet wide. These goverment assholes can't even dream up a moat correctly!
Only 20' to protect us from those monsters?
Better to set them out on some far off island out in the Pacific somewhere where they will have plenty of buffer space.
If someone asked me that question I would have busted out laughing. The guy who answered it is just as stupid as the questioner.
The retired and the near retiress (Boomers) are going to vote for succession? Fat chance. They have voted to give themselves massive new benefits (Medicare Part D in '03) and even the senior benefits that were added in Obamacare (expanded free preventative benefits and closing the donut hole in Medicare Part D) no party is talking about rolling back.
BOYCOTT MEXICAN OWNED BUSINESSES - PUT A BEANER OUT OF WORK!
Perfect for Obama- the emporer in his castle needs a moat.
CNNer's bizarre Cosby penis chomp interview seems to make Rush blush:
http://tinyurl.com/mgecrm9
CNN+Afirmative Action = Hilarity
Don't forget, this is the same rocket surgeon that suggested the missing Malaysian Airliner could have been swallowed by an African-American hole.
This guy couldn't properly sell popcorn - yet he draws a salary from a pseudo news network...
Past several years???
This process started in the 1860s, when feudalism was re-labeled "American System" economics.
This process started since the dawn of man. The fact that competition takes different shapes and forms does not change the fact that it's just competition. We can fix labels to what that competition looks like, e.g. feudalism, but they're all a day late and a dollar short. What use is affixing a label to something after it's already happened? Not a very fruitful observation for sure... The labelers are always one step behind the do-ers.
Further, the presumption of the labelers (and the rest of society) is that the form of government or economic system actually dictates how people behave... and they might be right in certain situations and for limited durations, but in the end, all of us do whatever the hell we want and compete however it is we feel best.
"Further, the presumption of the labelers (and the rest of society) is that the form of government or economic system actually dictates how people behave..."
No idea why you would get junked here, because this is spot on. Witness every single "unintentional consequence" springing from every single law that's passed in an effort to repeal basic human nature. We all "do for us," assertions to the contrary be damned just as they have been throughout human history. If you don't start with that premise your conclusions will always be suspect and likely incorrect.
the system defines the participants.
particularly so for hierarchies. top down rule-making, privileged classifications, guarantees culture polices itself via bullying, ostracizing and violence, subtle and not so subtle ways of keeping
everyone in their "place".
stop participating in self-oppression on the behalf of over-lords.
upvoted both of you.
Nothing to add except a solid +1.
Yeah, I'm amazed at the junking as well.
People NEED to read this for a better comprehension of how things work vis a vis us humans:
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814.html
I'm open for discussion, but am thinking that the record isn't going to be able to play out any differently no matter what we do.
I'll finish that up tomorrow. Great read and thanks for linking it.
We have a moat around half of Texas that doesn't work too well
Not deep enough, not wide enough, no alligators, lack of submerged concertina wire.
Yeah but Louisiana has a land bridge
That's why Mexico never places first in the Olympic swimming competitions. All their best swimmers are here. (That joke was told to me by a Mexican immigrant!)
Maybe the Bear bomber patrols will scare them away.
if they keep fucking the public they are going to need a moat
US revolutionaries were "domestic enemies" of the British empire in 1774. What we have now are revolutionaries in the White House and in Congress. The Tea Party is actually more accurately described as "counter revolutionaries", because they want to maintain the status quo, that is, maintain the US Constitution.
Yep, the Alinsky Marxists are definitely revolting.
The Tea Party is actually more accurately described as "counter revolutionaries", because they want to maintain the status quo, that is, maintain the US Constitution.
Which constitution is that? The one that allows people of color an equal say? Women the right to vote? The one that permits obamacare? The one that permits endless wars on vague enemies? The one that permits spying on all of americans' personal affairs?
You're over-thinking this...
And you have no clue what you are talking about.
Care to elaborate?
MacohMan is not.
Clearly, people have to have something to read before they can act. Something tells me that this turns problematic when there becomes a moment of pure survival.
I'm kind of thinking that the origin of our bust goes WAY back, back to "go forth and multiply." We were never given a set of instructions for when to stop multiplying on this here finite planet.
It goes back to the inception of man... The problem isn't that we're just designer jeans wearing monkeys in a concrete jungle, rather the problem is our denial of this fact... it's why our perception tends to be materially different than our reality... it's why our economic models fall short of predicting our behavior... it's why economic and political systems meld into one another and morph over time... it's how an entire nation of people can have all of our needs met, but yet depressingly long for more.
What is fairly startling to me is the basic concept of psychology. The fact that a well-trained professional can give someone an accurate diagnosis of a mental disorder simply from a session or two of talking about life, ought to scare the shit out of people. The fact that patterns of thought, leading to symptoms, fall into fairly identifiable categories ought to crush much of the notion of the unique snowflake. The conscious that we so dearly love is really just the derivative of an unknown person, our subconscious. This reminds me of the scene in the director's cut of blade runner where gaff leaves the origami unicorn for deckard. How we linger on in relative ignorance is beyond me, but the more we learn, the less room there is to hide.