Separtist Group? Or worse?

[Serious Paul]

I was looking for some information on what happened to German POWs after the end of World War II when I came across this.

is this some sort of white power thing? Or a separatist thing?

[TLM]

At first glance, it actually looks eerily like some of our own grade-A nutters.

[3278]

Declaration of Principles
The United States was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, individuals have the natural and God-given right to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy, these inherent and inalienable rights.

Thus, for well over a century, the American people said "No" to such anti-free-market government policies as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, immigration controls, economic regulations, drug laws, gun control, public schooling, and foreign wars. Despite the tragic exception of slavery, the result was the most prosperous, healthy, literate, and compassionate society in history. Unfortunately, in the 20th century, our country has moved in an opposite direction. Operating through the IRS, DEA, ATF, INS, FDA, FTC , and a multitude of other bureaucracies, our government has waged immoral and destructive wars on our freedom, our property, and our well-being.

It has seduced us into believing that we cannot live without this political paternalism. It has weakened our moral fiber and our sense of self-reliance, self-esteem, voluntary charity, and community. It has damaged our families. It has hurt the poorest people in society. It has turned foreigners into enemies. It has trampled on our Constitution. It has undermined our commitment to the moral foundations of freedom and to the benefits of free markets.

The time has come for us to reevaluate our relationship to our government — to repeal, not reform, these immoral and destructive government programs — to recapture our commitment to the principles of free markets, private property, voluntary charity, and limited government that made our nation great — and to believe in ourselves again. It is time for us once again to lead the world to the highest reaches of freedom in history. It is to this end that The Future of Freedom Foundation is dedicated.

They just sound like Libertarians to me. No nutters, seperatists, or white power that I've seen. Am I looking in the wrong places?

[MooCow]

At first glance, it actually looks eerily like some of our own grade-A nutters.

How are they nutters? Quick glance, all they want is an end to unconstitutional programs like Federal Welfare, Student Loans, Social Security, Drug Enforement, Enviromental Protection, etc.

How horrid, they want the government to obey the Law of the Land. The insanity! People wanting their constitutional rights... Clearly, it's the end of civilization! Think of the Children! *cries*

[Instant Cash]

According to all the political studies I have done and tests I have taken, I am actually considered a Libertarian.

Does this make me a grade-A Nutter?

[MooCow]

Does this make me a grade-A Nutter?

Well, no, /that/ doesn't make you a Grade A Nutter.....

[Ampere]

Playing Devil's Advocate here, but at what point does the plan become obsolete? The model for government set up in the 1700's was set up for a world that doesn't really resemble ours today.

What's the difference between using a model for government set down a couple hundred years ago and say, those of a couple thousand?

The only problem I see is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the good parts of government, but none of the bad. They want to constrain the "bad guys" but not be limited in their own lives. People want their liberties, but they also want to be protected from the nutters.

Getting back to the beginning. Where is that line? The line where it needs to be decided that the vision of government that was applicable THEN is no linger applicable? Do we really keep going back to the founding principles of government as a guideline, or do we move forward and amend things to the point where the government we have no longer resembles what the founding fathers intended at all?

[Daki]

Nothing I see there is overly nut-tastic but, then again, I'm also a Libertarian.

[MooCow]

Secondary Look - Like many Libertarians, they're a touch naive. I follow them about 80% of the way, but they always go that extra step off the edge of rationality.

Example: They support Open Borders because people own themselves and can go anywhere they want (or something, they're a touch unclear). Even if we accept this reasoning, the border is Government property (even in the case where the border is simple a line with no actual width). Logically, while your body may be your property, that doesn't mean you can come onto /my/ property. Until illegal immigrants develop teleportation, allowing them to jump from private property to private property whose owners have given them permission to access, it's illogical to say the Government doesn't have the authority to control immigration.

Still, I wouldn't classify them as "nutters", just zealots. Then again, they're nutters on my side of the fence, so I may be a bit biased.

[MooCow]

The model for government set up in the 1700's was set up for a world that doesn't really resemble ours today.

Which would be why the Founding Fathers, in their semi-infinite wisdom, included Article V in the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[Instant Cash]

Amp:

The Government setup 200+ years ago was not the greatest, and still isn't

The government we have today is not the greatest.

Both setups suck in that in the beginning, they where intentionally vague. Over time we have added parameters to this with a net result of suck (my opinion only).

In my opinion, government should only be enacted when individuals cannot come to a logical mutual understanding.

I am in my last week of my American National Politics class, I was hoping that taking this class would give me a better understanding of the government and not be so "anti-Government" like in the past.

While it did give me a better understanding of the political system, it only confirmed my beliefs that the government is broken and mostly crap, and should be redone.


[note: I did note have a spelling error when writing this post, next stop, grammar!]

[MooCow]

Both setups suck in that in the beginning, they where intentionally vague.

How is the Government set up vague? I've always thought it was all pretty clear. A few minor vague points, but otherwise pretty damned straight forward.

[Instant Cash]

Both setups suck in that in the beginning, they where intentionally vague.

How is the Government set up vague? I've always thought it was all pretty clear. A few minor vague points, but otherwise pretty damned straight forward.

Actually the orginal drafting was intentionally so. It was meant as an outline to be filled in as the country progressed.

however the "filling out" is really what I have a lot of issues with.

[DV8]

I don't think many people on Bulldrek who claim to be libertarians (or close to libertarians) would hold fast to those beliefs when they one day wake up and found that they would actually have to go through the trouble of having to pave their own roads (with the exception on Moo, perhaps), or do many of the things that the government provides for. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems that most Bulldrekkers don't really want to concern themselves with many of the things that the government concern themselves with.

[Daki]

D: As with any political grouping, there are moderates. While this group may have some improbably goals, I really don't think most are attainable. Myself, I'm not in favor of the total removal of all government entities but I am in favor of a simplification. For no other reason, I'd want to see the federal agencies streamlined because I believe the current setup is overly complex and creates far too much waste.

[MooCow]

Actually the orginal drafting was intentionally so. It was meant as an outline to be filled in as the country progressed.

Please explain this idea in full. Site examples of something that was left "unclear" to be "filled in at a later date". I see almost nothing in the Constitution that is vague. The vast majority is pretty explicit; "the government may do this" and "the government may not do this" and "here's how you give the government additional powers".

[3278]

I don't think many people on Bulldrek who claim to be libertarians (or close to libertarians) would hold fast to those beliefs when they one day wake up and found that they would actually have to go through the trouble of having to pave their own roads (with the exception on Moo, perhaps), or do many of the things that the government provides for.

I don't think you understand what Libertarians believe if you think they [commonly] believe the government shouldn't make roads. This is like saying, "I don't think many people who claim to be socialists would hold fast to those beliefs if they had to pay 100 percent tax." That's not the opinion they actually hold, it's a caricature of the opinion.

The ideal is that government should be as small as possible. Most Libertarians agree that government is necessary or desirable in cases like national defense and transportation infrastructure, the things you correctly point out can't be properly done individually.

I should note I'm not a Libertarian, so it's probably not nice for me to speak for them, but I do fit in your "close to Libertarian" camp, so that's probably okay.

[MooCow]

I don't think many people on Bulldrek who claim to be libertarians (or close to libertarians) would hold fast to those beliefs when they one day wake up and found that they would actually have to go through the trouble of having to pave their own roads (with the exception on Moo, perhaps), or do many of the things that the government provides for.

Heh. One thing to keep in mind, a lot of libertarians are Federal Libertarians. You ask a lot of libertarians if their Local Government should pave the road in front of their house, they'll say yes. Ask them if the Federal Government should do it, and they'll say no. It's basically a matter of control. I can control Joe Bob the Mayor of Woodridge Illinois a lot easier then I can control the PotUS, SCotUS, or CotUS.

Although, I'll agree with you that many Libertarians (capital L) are a bit on the irrational side. I argued with one guy over Government Regulation of Utilities. He insisted that if the Government wasn't involved in electrical distribution, the Free Market would lower prices. I pointed out that there is only one power line going to his house, and the Free Market would actually raise prices because of that. He got confused and wandered off to play in traffic.

[3278]

The model for government set up in the 1700's was set up for a world that doesn't really resemble ours today.

Absolutely. I don't see any reason to hold to a specific system of government because the Founders wanted it that way. That's just a weak Argument from Authority. The ideals they set down aren't ideal because they said so and we like them; if they are still ideal at all, it is simply because the condition they were planning for still exists. We should embrace what of theirs is valid, and shed what is not.

The only problem I see is that people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the good parts of government, but none of the bad.

Yes. I mean, isn't that what everyone should want?

They want to constrain the "bad guys" but not be limited in their own lives. People want their liberties, but they also want to be protected from the nutters.

I think some people are this way in a black/white sense, but I think most informed Libertarians realize that you give up some safety in exchange for liberty. [Given how often we quote that Franklin line, I think we all get it.] And most are prepared, also, to allow other people their freedom of speech and expression and whatnot in exchange for their own. It is, ah, those other people who like to force morality decisions on the populace.

Where is that line? The line where it needs to be decided that the vision of government that was applicable THEN is no linger applicable?

There is no line, only a gradient. Government should change with the times, but should maintain an inertia to prevent it from changing too radically, too quickly. Having some understanding of feedback devices like the regulator on a steam engine, the Founders understood that negative feedback - which is what checks and balances are - would provide that inertia. Thus the engine can build a head of steam at different pressures, but doesn't change so quickly as to damage the machine. Clever thinking, and in theory as valid today as then, although in practice, the specific checks and balances have existed so long people know all the ways to abuse them; the helpful solution is to utilize the concept, without utilizing the specifics.

[DV8]

I don't think you understand what Libertarians believe if you think they [commonly] believe the government shouldn't make roads. This is like saying, "I don't think many people who claim to be socialists would hold fast to those beliefs if they had to pay 100 percent tax." That's not the opinion they actually hold, it's a caricature of the opinion.

I admit that I might very well be guilty of holding exaggerated views on what Libertarianism stands for. I thought they were more extreme than you described, essentially wanting the government and taxation to be virtually non-existant.

[MooCow]

I admit that I might very well be guilty of holding exaggerated views on what Libertarianism stands for. I thought they were more extreme than you described, essentially wanting the government and taxation to be virtually non-existant.

It all comes down to how you define "virtually non-existant". Most Libertarians, in my experience, want small government in terms of powers, not neccesarily size. I'd accept a Federal Government that's bigger then the one we have today, and more costly, if all it did was build infratructure, secure the borders, and bomb France.

[Instant Cash]

I never said no government. Just smaller roles for government.

The White house office has grown from a few people to over 500.

The bureaucracy is bloody huge. Hundreds of thousands.

A large part stems form the New Deal era of FDR when he was trying to get the country sorted after the Depression.

Thing is, it hasn't gone down, only up, as well as their involvement in more things they shouldn't be.

[3278]

I don't think you understand what Libertarians believe if you think they [commonly] believe the government shouldn't make roads. This is like saying, "I don't think many people who claim to be socialists would hold fast to those beliefs if they had to pay 100 percent tax." That's not the opinion they actually hold, it's a caricature of the opinion.

I admit that I might very well be guilty of holding exaggerated views on what Libertarianism stands for. I thought they were more extreme than you described, essentially wanting the government and taxation to be virtually non-existant.

I'm sure there are those people, but as has been said, they'd be extremists, closer to anarchists than Libertarians. "As little as possible," yes, but we believe government is necessary and/or desirable in some cases.

[DV8]

...but we believe government is necessary and/or desirable in some cases.

So you do count yourself as a Libertarian, then?

[3278]

...but we believe government is necessary and/or desirable in some cases.

So you do count yourself as a Libertarian, then?

I should note I'm not a Libertarian, so it's probably not nice for me to speak for them, but I do fit in your "close to Libertarian" camp, so that's probably okay.

So I'm using "we" in a loose sense, there. I'm a libertarian, but not a Libertarian, if you take my meaning. I cannot imagine being able to align myself with any broad group, because it's inevitable that I will disagree with them on some points, and I'd rather not implicitly take responsibility for views that are not my own.

[DV8]

Ah right, gotcha.

[Instant Cash]

Well true, I do not completely agree with all Libertarian ideals and such, however they are the ones I /most/ relate too.


This is the case with any "group" really.

[TLM]

At first glance, it actually looks eerily like some of our own grade-A nutters.

How are they nutters? Quick glance, all they want is an end to unconstitutional programs like Federal Welfare, Student Loans, Social Security, Drug Enforement, Enviromental Protection, etc.

How horrid, they want the government to obey the Law of the Land. The insanity! People wanting their constitutional rights... Clearly, it's the end of civilization! Think of the Children! *cries*

Err... Given that all of these things they want to get rid of has, for now, been deemed constitutional enough to keep on the books, they're hardly illegal. So the government is following the law of the land. As for being nutters, well to me they seem like nutters. Not the bomb-using, gun toting weirdoes, but the philosophical kind of nutter, a bit too lost in their own ideas and theories. Cutting from the webpage...

The United States was founded on the principles of individual freedom, free markets, private property, and limited government. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reflect, individuals have the natural and God-given right to live their lives any way they choose, so long as their conduct is peaceful. It is the duty of government to protect, not destroy, these inherent and inalienable rights.

Thus, for well over a century, the American people said "No" to such anti-free-market government policies as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, immigration controls, economic regulations, drug laws, gun control, public schooling, and foreign wars. Despite the tragic exception of slavery, the result was the most prosperous, healthy, literate, and compassionate society in history. Unfortunately, in the 20th century, our country has moved in an opposite direction. Operating through the IRS, DEA, ATF, INS, FDA, FTC , and a multitude of other bureaucracies, our government has waged immoral and destructive wars on our freedom, our property, and our well-being.

It has seduced us into believing that we cannot live without this political paternalism. It has weakened our moral fiber and our sense of self-reliance, self-esteem, voluntary charity, and community. It has damaged our families. It has hurt the poorest people in society. It has turned foreigners into enemies. It has trampled on our Constitution. It has undermined our commitment to the moral foundations of freedom and to the benefits of free markets.

The time has come for us to reevaluate our relationship to our government — to repeal, not reform, these immoral and destructive government programs — to recapture our commitment to the principles of free markets, private property, voluntary charity, and limited government that made our nation great — and to believe in ourselves again. It is time for us once again to lead the world to the highest reaches of freedom in history. It is to this end that The Future of Freedom Foundation is dedicated.

First, the mission statement places an inordinate faith in free markets and a free market economy. Nothing that is too wrong or weird there, but releasing corporations from government-placed restrictions and trusting them to behave seems to me much like putting a pack of wolves in charge of a flock of sheep and expecting them to not eat mutton. There are very compelling reasons for both anti-trust and enviromental protection bills.

Second, I get the impression (quite possibly wrong) that they think the US government has waged some kind of deliberate campaign to undercut civil rights. While that might arguably be true with the PATRIOT act and Habeas Corpus being "suspended", that's a very recent development. When they claim that

Operating through the IRS, DEA, ATF, INS, FDA, FTC , and a multitude of other bureaucracies, our government has waged immoral and destructive wars on our freedom, our property, and our well-being.

they're edging very close to the area I consider conspiracy-theory. Also the comments about immigration-control. The US has had strict immigration-controls for a long, long time, and was very much an isolationist country. If they mean that WASPS weren't restricted, then they're right. Italians, Jews, Spaniards, Poles, Russians, Hungarians, etc, etc, were all very strictly regulated and submitted to quotae, though not in the constitution. That they apparently want to do away with this is admirably idealistic, but I hardly think that it'll ever happen.

Thirdly, what is or isn't unconstitutional is very much subject to change over time, as has already been argued very well here. While I don't think that the FFF wants to toss out everything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, it seems that they want to oversimplify things to a very severe degree. The current US government and its branches is the result of a long process of adaptation to change. Some of it, or even most of it, may not be necessary anymore, but due care should still be exercised when you want to take pruning-shears to any institution. Of course, they do make some very good points about not trusting blindly in the government, or the people making up governments, but I just can't see how they're going to implement the system they want in a practical fashion.

[MooCow]

<i>Err... Given that all of these things they want to get rid of has, for now, been deemed constitutional enough to keep on the books, they're hardly illegal.[/i]

Just because the government says it has the authority to do something does not mean it does.

<i>Thirdly, what is or isn't unconstitutional is very much subject to change over time,[/i]

Only through the amendment process. As no amendment has ever been passed to allow the government to institute forced charity giving, the vast majority of social welfare programs remain unconstitutional.

<i>The current US government and its branches is the result of a long process of adaptation to change.[/i]

A long process composed of numerous unconstitutional laws backed by immoral court decisions.

[Jestyr]

This is not me being snarky, I honestly want to know, since I'm not American and therefore don't have a history of learning this stuff:

1) The Constitution provides for the US Government to make laws, right?
2) Assuming the answer to #1 is 'yes', unless something is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the Government is free to pass laws about it?
3) Is there anything in the Constitution that says "thou shalt not tax thine citizens", or the equivalent?

Why is income tax, and the disposition of tax revenues into welfare programs, unconstitutional?

[TLM]

This is not me being snarky, I honestly want to know, since I'm not American and therefore don't have a history of learning this stuff:

1) The Constitution provides for the US Government to make laws, right?
2) Assuming the answer to #1 is 'yes', unless something is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the Government is free to pass laws about it?
3) Is there anything in the Constitution that says "thou shalt not tax thine citizens", or the equivalent?

Why is income tax, and the disposition of tax revenues into welfare programs, unconstitutional?

I'll echo this!

[3278]

First, the mission statement places an inordinate faith in free markets and a free market economy. Nothing that is too wrong or weird there, but releasing corporations from government-placed restrictions and trusting them to behave seems to me much like putting a pack of wolves in charge of a flock of sheep and expecting them to not eat mutton.

It's a commonly-used metaphor, but not an accurate one, since the wolves in this case require living, successful sheep to survive, and the sheep require living successful wolves to survive. Depending on how you look at it, this sort of balance either places great faith in the foresight and commitment of the populace, or, more cynically, gives the people exactly what they deserve, exactly what they choose to earn.

America was a frontier more recently than any other first-world nation. Some of us are still cultural products of that frontier. We believe in personal responsibility, personal accountability, personal freedom. We believe the greatest power should lie at the most individual level, because not very long ago, it had to. Is that mindset applicable in today's post-frontier nation? I'm not certain, but I know it's a world I would prefer to live in over the one I have now.

Second, I get the impression (quite possibly wrong) that they think the US government has waged some kind of deliberate campaign to undercut civil rights. While that might arguably be true with the PATRIOT act and Habeas Corpus being "suspended", that's a very recent development.

Well, to be fair to them, you have to admit this isn't the first time my government really has deliberately restricted civil rights. It's a natural result of power, to consolidate that power. And it's generally done for the most well-intentioned of reasons. No one is, in his own mind, a villain. We are all the heroes of our own stories. Government has, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, sometimes unintentionally, restricted the rights we had 200 years ago in this nation. That is the nature of evolving law, to continually limit. I don't bear the government of this nation ill will for failing me in a way it was essentially destined to do, but I would rather it change.

European governments, of course, started out vastly more restrictive - you know, being able to randomly kill citizens and such - and have thus only grown more enlightened since the foundation of my nation encouraged change elsewhere. And since then, have steadily gotten more restrictive of freedom, but thus is the nature of these things. As in America, the governments Europe have are those its cultures desire, whether they know it or not.

Also the comments about immigration-control. The US has had strict immigration-controls for a long, long time, and was very much an isolationist country.

How exactly do you mean, "long, long time?"

Thirdly, what is or isn't unconstitutional is very much subject to change over time, as has already been argued very well here.

Let's not kid ourselves, there's a couple of different kinds of unconstitutional. You're saying if Congress passed a law and the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional, it would be, even if the law directly contradicted the wording of the Constitution. There's legal interpretation of constitutionality, and there's individual interpretation of constitutionality.

While I don't think that the FFF wants to toss out everything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, it seems that they want to oversimplify things to a very severe degree. The current US government and its branches is the result of a long process of adaptation to change. Some of it, or even most of it, may not be necessary anymore, but due care should still be exercised when you want to take pruning-shears to any institution.

No. Due care is exactly what we can no longer afford in my nation. Slow change has produced a massive, sprawling, ugly thing, unable to move, dangerous only by virtue of size. We are, as you know, the next Roman Empire, and our Fall is every bit as likely to have repercussions of the same degree. If this nation is to escape its decadence, its lethargy, its obesity, it cannot afford to simply wait for slow adaptation and hope such is foresighted enough to take us where we must go. No. Action must be taken. We must take what is right, what is necessary, what is just, and write it on a single document. This shall be the law of the land. And in two centuries, if we have done our jobs well, our decedents will do the same, casting off the excess and starting anew. You'll notice our founding documents contain within them tacit approval of revolution against the very government the documents created; this too was planned.

And perhaps now I sound like them. But I'm not wrong.

[jo_alex]

Also the comments about immigration-control. The US has had strict immigration-controls for a long, long time, and was very much an isolationist country.

How exactly do you mean, "long, long time?"

As far as theory (law) is concerned - from the end of XVIIIth century till the end of WWII. And the national-origin quotas for immigrants were in force till mid 60's. I'd say that's quite a long time.

[3278]

Also the comments about immigration-control. The US has had strict immigration-controls for a long, long time, and was very much an isolationist country.

How exactly do you mean, "long, long time?"

As far as theory (law) is concerned - from the end of XVIIIth century till the end of WWII. And the national-origin quotas for immigrants were in force till mid 60's. I'd say that's quite a long time.

Then we have a very different idea of what "strict" and "isolationist" mean.

[jo_alex]

How exactly do you mean, "long, long time?"

As far as theory (law) is concerned - from the end of XVIIIth century till the end of WWII. And the national-origin quotas for immigrants were in force till mid 60's. I'd say that's quite a long time.

Then we have a very different idea of what "strict" and "isolationist" mean.

You think that denying the citizenship to anyone who was not of "white race", concluding international agreements that passports won't be issued to people wanting to travel to US (e.g. with Japan), setting quotas for immigrants from certain countries and then adjusting them repeatedly so as to stop the flow of immigrants to US - that's not a "strict" and "isolationist" policy?

[3278]

I'm not denying those policies may have been strict and isolationist [although not any moreso than most nations], but there were also policies which were not: by 1850, fully 10 percent of the population of the country was foreign-born. [edit: What percentage of the population of, say, Britain was foreign-born in 1850?]

It's worth noting, back on-topic, that I don't agree with these people's crazy "open immigration" policy, and I believe it would destroy the United States to allow such a thing. I favor strict immigration controls, which may be why I don't find the US immigration policies in question to be strict or isolationist.

My ideal immigration control would utterly close the borders of this nation to permanent settlement; I'm not certain if I would allow exceptions or not. [Actually, my ideal immigration control would send all persons not descended from native americans back where they came from, but that's probably a little too extreme. ] I believe the best thing my nation could do is lower its population, particularly its urban population, particularly its poor urban population, so letting in more people - poor and urban or not - isn't a good idea at this time.

[jo_alex]

I'm not denying those policies may have been strict and isolationist [although not any moreso than most nations], but there were also policies which were not: by 1850, fully 10 percent of the population of the country was foreign-born.

A bit more so than most nations, I would say. Though it's hard to measure, of course, taking into account that there were not so many countries to which people massively wanted to immigrate to.

[Actually, my ideal immigration control would send all persons not descended from native americans back where they came from, but that's probably a little too extreme. ]

That's a bit harsh, yes. Especially since... would you qualify to stay?

[3278]

I'm not denying those policies may have been strict and isolationist [although not any moreso than most nations], but there were also policies which were not: by 1850, fully 10 percent of the population of the country was foreign-born.

A bit more so than most nations, I would say.

Well, what was the foreign-born population of Nederland in 1850? I know your nation has always had a comparatively open immigration policy [for which Spinoza thanks you], and has accepted refugees willingly many times over the years. [Recent policy desires on the part of many citizens and politicians notwithstanding.] So how does a nation that we all agree did not have strict or isolationist policies compare? How about Britain, during the same period?

As you say, of course, it's difficult to make a comparison, given that not as many people wanted to move to those places, nor was there space or need for so many. But perhaps it is just this which highlights the immigration policies of the US in those years: Britain, for instance, wouldn't have needed such policies, because immigration was simply less of an issue.

None of this is support for US policies in the past: I just have a hard time reconciling the immigration of millions with isolationism.

[Actually, my ideal immigration control would send all persons not descended from native americans back where they came from, but that's probably a little too extreme. ]

That's a bit harsh, yes. Especially since... would you qualify to stay?

I would, indeed. Many people would, by now, as the blood has spread. What it would ultimately do is leave behind a very strange cross-section of my nation, not including the majority of the urban population, which is exactly the population we need to reduce, because urban areas consume vastly more than they produce. [Rural Kansas could exist just fine without New York City, but New York City would disappear without rural Kansas.]

[Serious Paul]

1) The Constitution provides for the US Government to make laws, right?

Sort of. It provides a system in which laws can be proposed by one portion of the government, requiring approval from two other portions of the government. (Grossly over simplified, but that's the process.)

It should be noted no real provisions were made considering how to remove laws.

2) Assuming the answer to #1 is 'yes', unless something is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, the Government is free to pass laws about it?

I'm no lawyer, but I think there are some areas not really covered int he constitution directly that have become off limits. Implied powers is a huge debate, and will remain one for a long time to come.

3) Is there anything in the Constitution that says "thou shalt not tax thine citizens", or the equivalent?

There is something that establishes, in somewhat vague terms how citizens will be taxed, and for what. And more importantly to some people there is a lack of wording that says taxes are how the Founding Fathers envisioned social programs being funded.

Why is income tax, and the disposition of tax revenues into welfare programs, unconstitutional?

Well obviously it isn't, since we (In this case we meaning Local, State and Federal governments) regularly use tax dollars to fund all sorts of things.

[Salvation122]

Why is income tax, and the disposition of tax revenues into welfare programs, unconstitutional?

Congress is limited in what it can pass laws on. Those who would argue that welfare is unconstitutional would say that the law is neither necessary and proper for the execution of Congress' other powers, nor does it regulate interstate commerce. (This is, frankly, a pretty legitimate argument.)

[3278]

Although personally, I think the "it's unconstitutional" argument is often a dodge to avoid discussing whether or not it's desirable. Ultimately, what is legal should be what is right; what is right is not necessarily what is legal.

[Rev]

The income tax isn't unconstitutional. In fact it is explicitly allowed by the 16th amendment to the constitution:

"Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "

People who argue it is are profoundly and almost certainly willfully ignorant, or intentionally lying.

[Rev]

[which is exactly the population we need to reduce, because urban areas consume vastly more than they produce Rural Kansas could exist just fine without New York City, but New York City would disappear without rural Kansas.]

Sorry, but that is ridiculously wrong.

Urban people consume far fewer resources than rural and suburban ones because urban life is much more energy and resource efficient. NY city actually has the lowest energy use per person in the US. The optimally efficient distribution of people from a resource use perspective would be for the overwhelmingly vast majority of them to live in dense cities like NY while a tiny minority live out near agricultural and resource extraction related activities where they work. In fact our "where people live" problem, from a resource use perspective, is exactly the opposite of what you assert. We have too many people living in inefficient suburban and rural areas, far more than need to live out there to work the land. Cities are also more economically productive per capita than rural areas.

Further farming of the intensity practiced in the US today is a highly technological activity and just as dependent on the economic activities of cities like NY for its support as they are on the farming for food. My uncle is a farmer and he uses infrared satellite photos of his land to decide where to water, keeps in contact with his employees almost exclusively by cell-phone, organizes his activities on a personal computer, and fends off pests with synthetic moth pheromone soaked paper developed at research institutes and manufactured in some high-tech factory somewhere. He also gets about 30k in government subsidies every year, which is not at all unusual.

The same is true of mining and forestry.

Now theoretically a society might be able to maintain some level of technology to live all spread out at a vaguely similar lifestyle to that enjoyed today, just as we might be able to figure out how to do all our farming with remotely operated equipment, or manufacture food in some kind of factory, but neither extreme is likely to be more efficient than spreading out those activities which are most efficient when spread out and concentrating those that are most efficient when concentrated.

fyi here is per capita energy usage by state:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/us ... _2001.html
Kansas, for example, uses twice the energy per capita that New York state uses, and NYC itself uses just 4700, 2000 below the NY state average.

[3278]

Urban people consume far fewer resources than rural and suburban ones because urban life is much more energy and resource efficient.

That actually doesn't matter to what I'm saying, although it's an interesting and valid point. I'm not talking about energy production, I'm talking about necessity production: New York City cannot grow enough crops to feed itself, cannot produce enough raw materials to clothe itself, and so on. Kansas can. A fair portion of the reason energy use is so high outside of the major metropolitan areas is because non-metropolitan areas are using so much energy making stuff for all those people in the city!

Again, I don't dispute your "resource use" assertions, but that doesn't bear on the issue of resource production.

Cities are also more economically productive per capita than rural areas.

That's because cities are where meaningless things get done, and there are so many meaningless things being done in this nation that all the money ends up there.

Further farming of the intensity practiced in the US today is a highly technological activity and just as dependent on the economic activities of cities like NY for its support as they are on the farming for food.

Except that, if cities were absent - an insane hypothetical, we agree - they wouldn't need to be. Farmers don't need bloody satnav if they don't have to feed 300 million people, most of whom are useless.

Now theoretically a society might be able to maintain some level of technology to live all spread out at a vaguely similar lifestyle to that enjoyed today...

Perhaps it's not been clear, but I don't favor continuing a lifestyle at all similar to that enjoyed today.

[Rev]

Oh well, I never did have a good idea of what your utopia was supposed to look like.

BTW the rural poverty rate in the US is higher than the urban poverty rate, so eliminating urbanism is not likely to cure it.

[3278]

Oh well, I never did have a good idea of what your utopia was supposed to look like.

Well, it starts by getting rid of Twinkies. We don't need Twinkies. Which means we don't need the people who make Twinkies. It's popular to think that we need them because otherwise the people who depend on them - their doctors, their waitresses, the people who make their cars - would all starve, but the fact is, we don't need them if we don't have the people who they depended on. Ultimately, we only need the people who produce food and shelter, but not many people want to go that far, and if they do, they can move to Uganda and starve to death. But somewhere between Twinkies and agrarianism lies a point I prefer to where we are now.

The reason America has 300 million people in it is the American System of Manufacture, which produced so much excess in terms of productivity that we could support 300 million people. This is no different from the invention of the plow, or crop rotation: if there is enough to support more people, we end up with more people. The problem is that the US doesn't actually need all the people it has, but because it has all those people, it has to find things to do with them, like make Twinkies. With the technological advancements we've made, we could get by with radically fewer people owning radically more property and still maintain a standard of living we'd have to call "comfortable." Yes, just as you lose efficiency housing people all spread apart, you lose economies of scale, but we're not talking about killing everyone, anyway.

Something that always astonishes me is what we choose to do with productivity increases. Crop rotation doubled crop production, but instead of working half as many fields, people worked just as many fields so they could make more money, which they then used to have more children, so population grew and you needed all those extra crops. The whole system increased in size, but gained nothing. When you think about all these massive increases in efficiency we've seen over the years - the Industrial Revolution[s], the plow, the McCormack reaper, and so on - you'd think people would only have to work an hour a day. But that's not what we do with progress. [Mostly; work hours are certainly better than they were before the plow.]

BTW the rural poverty rate in the US is higher than the urban poverty rate, so eliminating urbanism is not likely to cure it.

Today's rural poverty is part of today's post-ASM economy, and eliminating urbanism - or metropolitanism - is likely to change it radically, one way or the other.

[TLM]

So, your ideal USA would be one in which there were no great urban centers and with just about everyone as a farmer, with about a population of 25 to 50 million people? Is that an accurate summary, or am I completely off the mark?

[Serious Paul]

As an aside, just because something is allowed by the constitution doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[3278]

So, your ideal USA would be one in which there were no great urban centers and with just about everyone as a farmer, with about a population of 25 to 50 million people?

No. The population isn't far wrong, but I don't think we all have to be farmers.

In brief, because I have little time, my thinking is that we can no longer compete in industry, because China and India and Mexico and half the rest of the former third world are going through the 20th century of America on fast-forward. Since we cannot competitively export industry, we need to focus on what's next: information. We need to export our knowledge, our post-industrial logistics, all the benefits of hindsight. We need to create a nation of R&D, of advisors, of technology. The only way to do this, I believe, is to get rid of the massive glut of extra people [useful when you're industrial, not useful when you're not], invest heavily in research and technology, and completely reform our schools to teach a process-driven inquiry skillset: not information, but the means to get and gain more information, similar to the German technical school system from the last century, inspired by [something]-ozzi. [Sorry, I can't remember his name. Swiss educational theorist, in his spare time.] And we need to eliminate Twinkies, anything with the word "disposable" in it, and all the other inefficiencies which exist primarily to stimulate novelty and with it demand, and thus justify our industrial capacity.

Anything else is going to lead to increased trade deficit, and teach us that "waste" comes with economies of scale, too.

[Rev]

I find it ironic that the economy you describe is most closely approximated in the largest and most dense cities of the developed world, and least closely approximated in the rural areas.