Returning to the Constitution

My Recent Posts

When trying to promote my ideas of an alternative form of governance, I often encounter Americans who believe the political solution is to return to the ideals of the 1787 constitution. In particular, these thinkers believe that the original intent was to give the states a lot of autonomy in their affairs of governance. Anything at the federal level was to be very minimal. And, according to these thinkers, there has been a transition of "rights" from the state level to the federal level--and this transition is contributing to whatever flaws we see in the USA today. 


I am hoping to generate some more discussion on this topic, and this article will bring up several points. Bear in mind, that I am from Canada, so my perspective may not the best. And I am here to learn more about this topic as I believe any knowledge I can gain will be useful in communicating about my book. 



Similar to the United States, Canada, in 1867, also adopted a federation approach to governance where the provincial rights are clearly spelled out--and the federal people must clearly stay away from provincial jurisdiction. For the most part, there really isn't a lot of conflict here in most things: the provinces do these things, the feds do those things. But an issue or two does come up every once in a while that requires some kind of new definition of roles--or perhaps a bit of a nebulous arrangement between the provincial and national governments. But our constitution is pretty clear (at least 90% of the time) on federal vs. provincial jurisdictions.


I had my own oil well testing business from 1985 to 1992. Of course there were regulations around this business. But I mostly dealt with provincial agencies, such as workers' compensation, labor laws, and vehicle inspections. If I were to be in this business today, I would probably have to deal with more environmental issues, but this too would be provincial.


My only contact with the federal government was to remit payroll taxes of my employees and remit a corporate tax return. The system was set up quite well such that as long as my books were done correctly, it really didn't take that much work to keep up with my monthly reports: at best, a couple hours a month.


I didn't have much contact with municipal government in the seven years. But there were a couple of times I had to call the police for minor issues.


I am wondering if American small businesses have the same proportion of federal/state/local government agencies to deal with. I bring this up because my experience is that the federal government was really not an onerous body for me to deal with in Canada. If American small businesses are similar, then is it really correct to blame excessive business regulation on the federal government when most of these regulations are actually imposed at the state or municipal level? 



Some thinkers believe the transition from state to federal started soon after the Constitution was written--which means the federal government extended beyond the reach that founding fathers had originally intended. In other words, a very strong federal presence started early in this young nation.


If there wasn't a strong federal presence, would the 13 original colonies been united enough to effect the geographical expansion? Consider the following historical achievements:


1) Louisiana purchase

2) Repelling the British out of Michigan

3) Florida purchase

4) Annexation of Texas

5) Annexation of SW US

6) Oregon Territory Settlement

7) Alaska purchase

8) Annexation of Hawaii


If the 13 states had been acting more or less as independent countries, it's not hard to envision that three or four states not committing to one of these particular causes. Then the political drive and the resources to effect the expansion might not have been there.  In other words, the United States was able to expand because it had a strong federal government. Why then should the USA want to curtail these powers today?




There is a common platitude that smaller government is better government. And government from a smaller jurisdiction is more able to administer to the local people than a bigger jurisdiction. 


If this is true, then state government is superior to federal government, right?


If so, then should we not even go smaller? Maybe all counties should have their own FBI, high school curriculum, and vehicle registration. Or just divide up the country in Rhode-Island sized bits, and give each unit its own government. Should that not fix many of the political problems America seems to be facing?





When reverting government authority more towards the state level from the federal level is considered a political fix for America, I say this is all a smokescreen for what really ails America. If there is such a thing as the DEEP STATE, it should be happy that the discussion is being carried in this direction. After all, it will take decades of deliberate political effort to move to more state control with the DEEP STATE bucking the changes all the way. And if the changes are successful, the DEEP STATE will just move its nebulous forces to the state level. If it loses, it still wins, right?


But let's see where this WB discussion goes.










Doug Plumb Added Feb 7, 2018 - 1:50pm
People espousing new ideas do not know the old ones. We do not need new ideas we need to erase new ideas and return to the fundamentals.
  The constitution is a product of genius, spanning a thousand years, each little bit earned with lifetimes of dedicated study and not a small amount of natural ability on the part of these men.
  We forgot the thinking that went into it, we must now remember.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 7, 2018 - 1:51pm
 There are a thousand new constitutions on the web.
Jeff Jackson Added Feb 7, 2018 - 2:21pm
Nice article Dave. A few notions. We have "mission creep" where the federal government has taken over things that they should never have taken over. Our Constitution says that things not specifically given to the federal government remain, and belong to, the states, or even (gasp) the people. Gosh, the people. You know, those folks that pay taxes and make things run in this country. Almost every Supreme Court decision, and this was from my Constitutional Law prof, goes in favor of the federal government.
In Jefferson's day, the federal government delivered the mail and protected the shores and not much else. It's a lot different now. The recent Department of Justice memo proves almost unquestionably, that the federal government has gone too far. The amazing thing (and this is not my idea) is that the liberals, in past years, insisted that the federal government back down, and now, they consistently ask for more of it. My, how things change. 
Mike Haluska Added Feb 7, 2018 - 3:21pm
Dave - your assertion:
"There is a common platitude that smaller government is better government. And government from a smaller jurisdiction is more able to administer to the local people than a bigger jurisdiction. 
If this is true, then state government is superior to federal government, right?"
Can be answered by:
"There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first."
- Ayn Rand
What the "Russia Collusion" farce has unintentionally exposed is the Federal Government being corrupted by a group of criminals in the FBI, DOJ, IRS and State Department.  Their brazen attempt to first rig an election for Hillary Clinton and then overturn the duly elected President Trump is going to be the biggest, most widespread political scandal in American history.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 7, 2018 - 3:33pm
I'm the North Dakota contact person for the Constitution Party, a party that advocates for many points you address, Dave.  Literally, books have been written on this topic of Constitution government vs extra-Constitutional government.  But let me see if I can boil this down to just a few, perhaps overly simplistically stated, points.
1.  Economics = Deep State:  I believe this stems from the establishment of corporations as "legal persons".  Until then there is no history of any business generating multi-generational political control or influence.  If it were possible to roll back the existence of corporations (LOL), the Deep State, a big business controlled oligarchy, these issues would go away, in my opinion. 
                          Economics:  The free market system is a good powerful system that has existed since the beginning of time.  A monopoly is bad with many examples available.  But, the end result of a truly free market MUST be a monopoly.  I have no idea how to get this correction through a big business controlled PAC funded government.
2.  Individual rights/freedoms: 
                         Background:  If there is no government, then all individuals are free to do whatever they want, rob, rape, murder, etc.  However, this also means there is no society.  Anyplace where there is more than one person, there is government (Government = rules of the group/society).  One person is deemed, usually through consensus, to be the leader, perhaps of a particular activity.  One may be the leader in hunting or war and another to judge disputes, etc. The larger the society, the more complex the disputed issues become and the more leaders needed to rule.  Once said government gets large enough to provide what are deemed "Needed Services", then funding is needed to pay those who actually provide those services. 
                    Big government:  When government services are determined to be needed to tell/order citizens to do things a certain way "for the good of all citizens" we have moved from services to big brother overbearing and now bloated government that is now designed to control the citizens and not just provide services.  Examples of intrusive big government include but are not limited to education, environment, income tax, welfare distribution, etc.  These are not needed for government operation, but to control citizens in one respect or another.
                Small government:  Small government only provides needed services, such as physical infrastructure, military for protection of our boarders, and other services as many of us believe are well itemized in the US Constitution to include operation of the government and oversight of noted services.  Anything not specifically itemized in the US Constitution can and should be decided by the local community or if deemed important enough, the state.  One obvious problem is the expansion of technology, vehicles to include soon commonly available flying personal craft (flying car - BTW I have a design for one fueled with water if we can get past C2O = C, CO to C, C, & O easily done and cost effective method), communications media, Internet and who knows what else in the near future.  There is a national good to consider.  For example, railroads have to have consistent track width from state to state.  This could be a reasonable determination by the Federal government and negotiated conformity with Canada and Mexico for International Trade (BTW the international width was determined by the Ancient Roman Civilization = the width of two horses and chariot so the tunnels they made could be used by modern RRs - LOL).  The technology of medicine, I believe, has caused medical care to fall into this category and to include methods of funding said medical care.
                            Gray Area:  International Terrorism cannot be ignored any more than a criminal gang be ignored until they rob YOU and only you have the right to try and stop them unaided.  International businesses driving out domestic businesses until only a one world monopoly exists.  The environment is a complex issue.  There is a real need to protect our planet from pollution.  However, there is a line between reasonable protection from pollution and pseudo-science invention of environmental problems caused by imaginary pollution.  This example does illustrate how some real issue can be exploited by certain people to grow government for their own
Joe Chiang Added Feb 7, 2018 - 3:35pm
Oops, looks like my post was cut off.  Sorry.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 7, 2018 - 4:33pm
Ideally, the federal government should be as limited as possible, while states handle issues more closely to people and their communities.  No government is perfect, which is why federal; state; and local governments must work together to deal with problems.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 7, 2018 - 5:04pm
The issue is when Al Gore (or fill in a different name) becomes head of Dept of Energy and says citizens are too stupid to make energy decisions and he is making them for everyone because he is sooooo smart.  Now what options do state and local governments have?  LOL
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 7, 2018 - 6:26pm
The basic principle of the founders is in the Declaration of Independence. 1) Law of nature means people have the ability to act so long as it doesn't harm others.  Common law, that which society knows as individually, not in a mob situation, is right.  The Ten Commandments is a set of common laws.  Independence must be reasonable, therefore explicable and explainable.   2) Created equal means that the rules that apply to one apply to all and no barriers be placed in society that restricts the gaining or loss of wealth and the ability to present one ideas to others.  3) Unalienable rights that are found in nature, acting to stay alive, being free to act, and gaining from ones own efforts and distributing them as you see fit.  4) Consent of the governed.  Shall be obtained at reasonable intervals from the citizens. 
The next thing that the founders realize is that men are not angles and that factions develop.  When factions, those that share similar beliefs, wants, join with other factions with some shared values then they may constitute a majority in government and promote their own interest over the general public. 
The Constitution was constructed to achieve the above balance.  Division of power in the government itself dealt with man not being angles.  Different ways of choosing representatives and having different lengths of office were designed to combat factions.  Limited powers that are enumerated was meant to deal with both non-angles and factions.
What has broken down is the balance since bureaucrats that are not elected and secure position create the vast majority of laws, enforce the laws and adjudicate them.  All from the same department.   The legislative branch have given away the power to create laws so that they are not blamed for the results.
Enumerated powers has broken down.  The judicial branch has allowed a very broad view that has turned the constitution in a flexible document with only limits that are advantageous at the moment.  The breakdown of division of power has occurred because the judicial as allowed department in the executive branch to perform the judicial and legislative functions. 
The Amendment that ended the selection of Senators by the state legislature ended federalism.  Factions are much harder to create across the state legislatures that are separate by distance and economic environment.  The legislature's leash on their representative was lost.   The states would automatically choose to do functions instead of send money to the central government and have them do them within their state.  So Federal government and the bureaucracy would be much smaller do to self interest expressed by the Senate.  
I am not sure how the nation would deal with huge corporation like Goodall, Amazon, etc..  The states could not deal with them.   The states are a major cause for the health care situation because they built borders between states.  I am not sure if those barriers would have developed if Federalism still existed.  The interstate commerce laws is another mess.   
Doug Plumb Added Feb 7, 2018 - 8:02pm
If we didn't have the public-private partnerships and government dependence on large corporations(election donations) and visa versa (bailouts) companies that get large would collapse under their own weight. Walmart's and Amazon's and Microsoft's would not exist.
re "3) Unalienable rights that are found in nature, acting to stay alive, being free to act, and gaining from ones own efforts and distributing them as you see fit."
That will be tricky when everyone gets replaced by a robot.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 7, 2018 - 8:04pm
re "The issue is when Al Gore (or fill in a different name) becomes head of Dept of Energy and says citizens are too stupid to make energy decisions"
They are too greedy and too stupid. Canadians get onto the government teat with solar cells and selling electricity back to government at 80 cents a kwhr. People think windmills and solar panels are good for the environment.
A non centralized press would put a stop to that - no more bemoths partnered with NSA.
Autumn Cote Added Feb 8, 2018 - 5:13am
No interest in engaging your commenters?
Dave Volek Added Feb 8, 2018 - 11:21am
Life happens. Some of us can't be on WB 24/7.
For these days, the constitution is a flawed document. It is no longer working--and there are enough signs to see this if one is looking.
If the federal government only delivered the mail, the USA would not have expanded beyond the 13 colonies. It seems strange that those who advocate for a rollback of federal powers will still insist on keeping the "good" things a strong federal government has brought them.
The Ayn Rand quote really did not answer whether state (provincial) authority was better than federal authority.
North Dakota just might have become a part of Canada had the USA not developed a strong federal government. Hmmm.
You are introducing quite a few new topics to this thread. I hope you have the time to write separate articles on them. 
The constitutionalist movement (can you write a WB article on this?) is definitely gaining a lot more traction than my TDG . In my opinion, unless you guys figure out a way to get rid of the political parties, you are only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
You have provided some of the signs that the constitution is no longer serving us. The courts are making new laws because our legislatures can't. Bureaucrats are assuming more authority because of the lack of unity in the legislature. USA's bicameral method is no longer breaking down the factions as designed.
Your later posts are way off topic. Not much sense in responding to them. Write a separate article on these topics.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 8, 2018 - 1:38pm
David, the courts have been making laws almost from the start.  The surely did before the Civil War.  The problem is that the legislature has not gone back and overturned the court decisions often.  Bureaucracies should have been broke up by the courts citing that the powers of the executive branch only can enforce the law.  They overextended their reach in the process of writing regulations.  And they have no judicial authority.  Thus the court has make law that violates the Constitution division of powers.    
Congress receives welfare to the lobbyist they have purchased their vote.  Article 5 with an amendment to the Constitution can end all of the above problems and the state legislature can draft the amendment and the states approve amendments.  Congress and the Federal government are secretaries in the process and have not say.
Dave Volek Added Feb 8, 2018 - 2:12pm
Again, your points are coming to the some conclusion. The system is no longer working the way it is supposed to.
If I bring my 1937 Chevrolet to my mechanic, he will ask me, "What is wrong?".
I will say: "The clutch needs to be replaced, the starter sometimes doesn't engage, the right windshield wiper is broken, the engine runs with black smoke on the startup, the ride has become very bouncy, and steering wheel shudders when I take a left turn."
The mechanic will say: "Maybe you should buy a new car."
Doug Plumb Added Feb 8, 2018 - 10:33pm
You need a constitution that permits more corruption then.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 8, 2018 - 11:49pm
The problem is not the Constitution, but the spin on new interpretations.  For example, that the 2nd Amendment is to "protect the right to have a hunting weapon" or that ONLY the government controlled militia may have weapons.  The original purpose of this Amendment is to protect the citizen to be able to have weapons to protect themselves from and repel an overbearing government.  Waco comes to mind.
opher goodwin Added Feb 9, 2018 - 3:57am
Dave - We had our own mini break-up here. The county of Humberside was broken up into 4 smaller regions. It cost us a fortune and still does.
All of the bureaucracies were duplicated in each of the regions. New offices and staff were hired. We ended up with four times the number that we'd started with.
An example is the Head of Education in Humberside. He was employed as head of one of the four new regions on substantially increased salary. Three other heads of education were employed. New offices were built and new teams put together. The cost of administering education was actually six times higher than previously. Instead of money going into schools for more teachers, equipment and school buildings it was channelled into bureaucrats. 
On a mundane level all the old stationery and road signs and other signage had to be changed and updated at a cost of millions.
The end result of all this was worse services, higher costs and less efficiency.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 9, 2018 - 7:08am
The USA is also operating under the War Powers Act. The constitution, when not convenient for war, is set aside. Its under the false pretense of the USA being attacked, the only legal justification for war.
  We were also supposed to get a Jubilee, but we got 9-11 instead. 9-11 has huge historical repercussions. A thousand years from now it will be the most significant event of all of human history.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 9, 2018 - 7:10am
The constitution is nothing more than an expression of common law. As Kant makes clear, it is not perfect. Kant's Metaphysics Of Morals explains that secret societies will destroy a society that permits them to exist. There is enough occult symbolism in the courthouses and government buildings in the USA to make it impossible to deny their existence or influence.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 9, 2018 - 9:09am
David,  when, "The mechanic will say: "Maybe you should buy a new car."  There are cars on the market to purchase.
When your doctor lists problems just as serious an those on your car, I can not think of one person that says 'Maybe you should scrape this body, not worth fixing.'
The point is that there isn't a replacement with a proven track record for the Constitution.  There are many far worse and a few with a similar track record.   You know the grass is greener in the field over there syndrome.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 10, 2018 - 6:06am
If something breaks in a machine, you not only need to fix it but also know why it broke. Is this failure traceable to another component that isn't working? In the case of the constitution failing, I believe that is traceable to another source.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 10, 2018 - 12:36pm
Doug, I believe you are correct.  I believe it is called sin.  LOL  Sin is at its root selfishness.  Eve ate because she was fooled SHE COULD gain something.  This is selfishness in a nutshell.  A person desires what another has for SELFISH reasons.  People do not follow what is in the Constitution for selfish reasons.  
Dave Volek Added Feb 11, 2018 - 6:15pm
The issues of centralization vs. decentralization is usually a hot topic. In the last 15 years, Alberta went from a highly centralized health care system to about eight regional health care systems and back again to centralized.
I think the TDG will be better able to find that right balance--and make changes when the way isn't working too well. 
I believe a big reason for the "right to bear arms" was to ensure enough arms were in the country to deter Britain from coming back to retake a former colony or two.
Another reason was to give slave owners the tools to quickly control slave rebellions.
These two reasons are gone. Today's popular interpretations have little to do with what the founding fathers' interpretations.
Dave Volek Added Feb 11, 2018 - 6:19pm
Good point indeed. If there is supermarket for systems of governance, the selection and the quality are not great.
Yet the founding fathers had to vision to build something new that had never been proven before. Why can't Americans do this again?
The early builders of the TDG will have to prove the TDG they have constructed is worthy for the general public's approval. These early builders will have learn some new skills to make it work. It's all in the book. And I believe Americans will be the first to put the effort and make it work.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 11, 2018 - 11:42pm
We have an absolutely perfect government. The laws are ideal, no one can ever come up with better laws than the ones we have. They are the product of the kinds of people who only come along once every fifty years, a good heart and an off the map IQ or imagination or devine inspiration, I don't know what. You get Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Kant - ideas that are so good, they outstrip ideas like QM or relativity or complex numbers or Taylor series by a long long shot. Our legal system sits on this giant mountain designed by people like this.
  We are just not smart enough to see the value in knowing laws. No one knows a goddamed thing about law, because if they did they would be saying the same thing I am saying. Instead they let assholes take their freedom away and remain enslaved, and picking convenient ways of explaining it of fixing it without ever seeing the real problem.
  Freedom means people are free to rape you if you cannot defend yourself. Everybody gets raped and its OK because everyone else is getting raped too. "collective madness". Vote for the people who are most competent and raping you the hardest.
  We have the government we deserve, and if we, and the men with guns ever decided to learn law, these people that run our current government would be fucked, they would be arrested and thrown in jail as traitors.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 12, 2018 - 11:49am
Dave, I respectfully disagree.  We had already beat England once.  The War of 1812 is sometimes called the "Second War for Independence".  At the time of the Revolutionary War, we were English citizens, this was a Civil War!  We fought against our own overbearing mother nation.  It was the fear that our own new government may at some point try and become the very same kind of overbearing government we had just thrown off that the Second Amendment was passed.  The founding fathers wanted to make sure if that were to happen, that citizens had the means to fight back in another civil war.  The US Civil War demonstrates how difficult it is to ward off an overbearing Federal Government even when it is many states banded together.  The fight then was over states rights, and we are still having that very same political fight today, because our Federal government is still overbearing and overriding what is clearly state jurisdiction, education for example.  The US Second Civil War will be over the same main issue as the first Civil War, states rights, just not the right to decide if slaves could be owned, but who owns our children, our property, decisions involving our lives.  This time it will not just be a north/south battle, but freedom loves vs central control of everyone's lives.
Dave Volek Added Feb 12, 2018 - 12:31pm
You are making "states' rights" seem like an act of God, not of men. There is nowhere in the Bible that says American states have these certain rights and the federal government has no right to intervene.
If it is just a platitude that smaller states are inherently better than the nation to decide on a certain aspect, then we can extend that logic that counties are better than states. I made this point in the original article.
And I made the point that, in the end, it doesn't matter whether a certain regulation is federal, state (provincial), or municipal, it is still a regulation that was created by democratic due process and all citizens must abide--or face consequences if they choose not to.
I see your position as being platitude driven, without much thought into what is best for the citizens at the municipal, state, or national levels. With that kind of thinking, the USA might be heading for civil war again. 
Spartacus Added Feb 12, 2018 - 12:56pm
I'm trying to think of what's more stupid than a lefty writing about the pros/cons of the US constitution . . . oh wait.  I got it.
A lefty from CANADA writing about the US constitution!
Dave Volek Added Feb 12, 2018 - 3:23pm
I was just beginning to wonder where Mr. Stockton has gone to.
William, can you debate the points I have raised. It seems strange to me that many Americans hate regulations, yet (I believe) most regulations come from the state or municipal levels.
Unfortunately, left-leaning people have the same right to vote and free speech as you. Someday your movement may be strong enough to throw them in jail, but not now.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 12, 2018 - 6:51pm
David, there is a problem with your solution, "Yet the founding fathers had to vision to build something new that had never been proven before. Why can't Americans do this again?"   In theory Americans could do it again.  But history shows that the the vast majority of revolutions results in totalitarian governments. 
The reason American Colonies didn't suffer this problem was that the colonies all had democratic governments.  If a citizen didn't like what they were doing they could easily move into the wilderness to get out of the colonial government's reach.  A citizens could actually find a place to lived by the 'Law of Nature and Nature's God.'  
The Democratic Socialism that reaches into every nook and cranny of a person live, a basic principle of socialism, makes experiencing freedom at the level in the Colonies impossible today. 
The reason why the revolution created Federalism was based on the low tolerance for even the hint of 'big brother.'   Articles of Confederation is a clear indication the low tolerance  for feeling the heavy hand of government that the citizens had.   
So the safest approach is to repair the present Constitution because with the discussion of that repair the principles that made the original Constitution will be understood by a large portion of the population.  And the Constitution has a conservative approach to amend the Constitution that requires a national discussion and agreement.  
FDR 'Second Bill of Rights' would never have Become Amendments so what FDR should have titled it "PLANKS OF A SOCIALIST SOCIETY." 
David you are in favor of these planks.  I agree with William S.,  Your a socialist which in the final state of their principles is a Communist style government. 
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2018 - 7:50pm
Eliminate the war powers act and restore constitution. Hard to do that when enemy lies from within. I wonder if they are more afraid than we are.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2018 - 7:51pm
re "Unfortunately, left-leaning people have the same right to vote and free speech as you. Someday your movement may be strong enough to throw them in jail, but not now."
Maybe the Lefties will kill us all first.
Spartacus Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:33pm
Unfortunately, left-leaning people have the same right to vote and free speech as you.
Unfortunately, yes.  Unfortunately, because your typical lefty is too friggin stupid to understand why a constitution was written in the first place . . . let alone the cost, in human life, to maintain its relevancy.
Dave Volek Added Feb 12, 2018 - 9:50pm
There is a great difference between English America and Spanish America. The northern English part had a good look at a maturing English democracy. The Americans pulled a few things from that and made it a little better. The Canadians more or less kept the Westminster system. But the Spanish and Portuguese colonies only had oligarchies as their example for governance. The difference of their respective examples still reverberates today between the two "americas." 
Both the US and Canada had another great social relief valve. If a citizen was fed up with whatever was going on in the civilized world, he could just pull up stakes and move west. He could start a farm or a riverboat or a mule train or a small mine or whatever. There were so many ways for an average working man to become successful in those days--if they moved west. 
This moving west was a social engineering tool that really helped America grow fast. Get rid of your unhappy people by sending them where they can be more useful to the economy. This tool is no longer there for Americans today. There just isn't a lot of opportunities for someone to find success mostly by their back and/or long hours----and little capital.
My understanding of history is that the 13 colonies wanted to remain more or less as independent countries. They distrusted each other almost as much as they distrusted the British. And they were worried that the British were going to come and pick them off one at a time. That is the main reason they united and created their federal government.
And as my original article suggested, I can't see how the Americans would have withstood the War of 1812 had each state made their own decision on how to handle the British. This war needed a strong national government.
 As for being called a socialist, I guess most libertarian thinkers would lump me with Stalin and Mao. I believe there are situations when governments should let individuals make their own choices and there are situations that require some collectivist action. But if any collectivist action makes me a socialist, I guess that is what I am.
Dave Volek Added Feb 12, 2018 - 9:51pm
Calling me names won't accomplish much. You are better than that.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 12, 2018 - 11:10pm
Dave, how many years have you spent in the US?  I think you are missing some basic understandings that used to be called Americanization for people coming to the country.
Spartacus Added Feb 12, 2018 - 11:52pm
Calling me names won't accomplish much.
I didn't call you any names, Dave.  
How about instead of being overly sensitive, Dave, you should be overly concerned that your current leadership there in the Can-Can is running at top speed toward communism . . . faster than our retarded leftys here are running toward irrelevancy.
Spartacus Added Feb 13, 2018 - 12:01am
Oh, and by the way Dave, I'm not better than that.  Stop putting me on a pedestal. 
I'll call out stupid here because stupid people are dangerous and create drama for everyone else.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 13, 2018 - 8:10am
Communism is in the Socialist family, just a fact.  I do not think a lot of Democratic Socialist think that they are even close to Communism.  Like comparing protestants to Catholics.   The cores and the end goal for the sole is the same.   I have read both and Democratic Socialism and Communism end goals are the same.  Rome started out as a democratic federation and ended up passing through Democratic Socialism a harsher near Communism Socialism.   
I do not want socialist to lead the charge to fix the Constitution because they do not believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence.   Consent of the Governed is not done once and then the master minds socialist will say 'you gave your consent.  We know what is best for YOU.  So we will not make all the decisions.'  The people work for the state not the other way around.  That David is why you are opposed.  We know there is no such thing as 'Master Mind.'
Joe Chiang Added Feb 13, 2018 - 10:29am
Thomas, sorry to pick on details, but I respectfully disagree. 
There is only a slight degree in the difference between socialism and communism.  Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism very only in the amount of private property ownership.  Capitalism is the individual private ownership of property only.  The government does not own nor control any private property.  Capitalism is the true unfettered free market system. 
Socialism is some private ownership and some government ownership or control of private property.  Socialism is the entire distance from 1% private ownership to 99% private ownership of property.  For example, government control of the auto, banking and or health care systems but other businesses are privately owned.  This is the case of the US (ObamaCare, education, bank and auto industries) and Nazi Germany (Health care, education, banking and auto). 
Communism is 100% ownership of property by the government.  Economically, this has NEVER worked at any level, school, community, state, or nation.  China was only successful once they permitted workers to have small land plots to grow their own food.  The collective failed over and over. 
There is about the magnitude of difference between Protestant and Catholic.  Catholic leadership want control over their members.  They advocate that the Pope is infallible and the direct and only link to God.  Members MUST do whatever they are told to do by church leadership.  This is why they do NOT want their members to read the Bible as the Bible says ALL men commit sin and fall short of the glory of God which is contrary to Catholic doctrine.  The Bible teaches each person is responsible for their own personal relationship with Christ. 
Roman Catholics split from Eastern Orthodox Catholics over the worship of statues of Mary and the Saints.  The Bible says to have no images and these are obviously images.  This split was called "The Great Schism" in 1054. 
Protestants split over both this point AND the reading of the Bible for themselves.  This is a big deal as the Roman Catholic Church considered members who read the Bible for themselves as heretics and executed them.  Burning at the stake comes to mind.  This is where the Pilgrims learned to enforce their doctrine in the same way burning witches.
Dave Volek Added Feb 13, 2018 - 11:26am
Dave, how many years have you spent in the US?  I think you are missing some basic understandings that used to be called Americanization for people coming to the country.
Between working and tourism and training, I would say about a year altogether. I used to live in Estevan, and we made a few trips to North Portal for a steak and beer. It was amazing at how quickly the accent changed!
But I really didn't understand the rest of your question.
Dave Volek Added Feb 13, 2018 - 11:30am
You know there is a movement called Convention of States. I'm not leading it in any way. So have no fear. I'm on a different path, probably something progressive thinkers might like. But so far, no interest from them. So have no fear.
America has violated its own principles in the Declaration of Independence so many times that this document is cast the heaps of "not being able to practice what you preach."
Joe Chiang Added Feb 15, 2018 - 12:16am
Dave, you understand.  Dave you have no idea.  LOL  When you have lived in freedom all your life, you understand the implications for freedom and what a tragic loss of freedom would be.  Canada has been a socialist state which makes it difficult for you to imagine anything else, I would think.  The US has been moving toward socialism since Wilson.  Year by year the Federal government has been getting bigger and bigger.  The peoples freedom has been getting smaller and smaller.
Thomas Sutrina Added Feb 15, 2018 - 8:33am
Joe C., I switched from Catholic to a Protestant church so I do understand the difference but the foundation is the same.  The end goal upon death is the same.   I agree with what you said.
Socialism approaches Communism but at the limit no difference.  Chicoms to prevent the collapse that the USSR experience that embraced parts of Socialism, moving together.  America and Europe Democratic Socialist are following Fabian tactics.  Chicom's approach to the private sector matches Fabians, "One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State, which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State. It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity. Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn't advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land, instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the
"C. S. Lewis pointed out, the most dangerous power grab is the one motivated by “doing good”, because its fruits engender a pompous arrogance toward others who “don’t understand”."  This is the tactic of socialism and now for the Chicoms Communism.  The people will not revolt when they think the government is doing good, serving their interest.  But they keep control of the major string of the economy.
Dave Volek Added Feb 15, 2018 - 12:15pm
Please give me a list of freedoms that Americans enjoy that Canadians don't have.
Dave Volek Added Feb 15, 2018 - 12:18pm
C.S. Lewis said it well:
The people will not revolt when they think the government is doing good, serving their interest.
More and more Americans believe the government is serving the wealthy classes rather than society as a whole.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 15, 2018 - 7:26pm
Dave, it is more of an attitude.  US citizens feel we are a special God birthed nation.  The attitude of self reliance is a big part of the American way.  People from all over the world want to come here to enjoy what this nation has to offer, both tangible and intangible.  
Dave Volek Added Feb 16, 2018 - 12:47pm
I would say that "attitude" is mostly in your mind, not grounded in reality. Americans and Canadians enjoy very similar kinds of freedom and restrictions--from what I can see. 
Illegal immigrants come to the USA because it has a history of not throwing out illegal immigrants. Many businesses prefer to hire these people over real Americans, so the government looks the other way.
I would definitely say that illegal immigrants have more freedom in USA than in Canada.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 16, 2018 - 3:03pm
I'm not going to argue Dave.  But I was never aware of the acceptance of illegals?  Granted that may be the case over the last two decades thanks to socialists leaders in our government bringing us closer to Canada, but this has not been the case the last few centuries. 
Dave Volek Added Feb 16, 2018 - 3:31pm
I think you have missed my point. If an immigrant comes to Canada, it's a case of sign them up or ship them out. We ship out a lot of people who want to come here. But there is a due process and it may take three years to get the legal orders to deport. But if any immigrant believes he can stay in Canada under the radar for 20 years or so, he is sadly mistaken.
The acceptance of illegal immigrants is a social force of business, not lefties. Business wants to hire people who are willing to work a lot less than minimum wage and with no employment standards. Unfortunately for those illegal immigrants, these work situations are still preferable to their opportunities back home. With little chance of deportation, they make what you and I would call a reasonable business decision: cross the border and find an under-the-table job.
And in Canada, we also have laws that require employers to hire only documented people. And companies who hire intermediary companies staffed with illegal immigrants, that first company is also subjected to harsh penalties. In other words, nearly all companies are very careful in hiring citizens or documented immigrants.
In this regard, we could say that American businesses have more freedom than Canadian business.
Joe Chiang Added Feb 17, 2018 - 1:12pm
Dave, I did not know that about Canada.  But they is not the LAW in the US.  It was the Obama and liberal refusal to follow the law, sanctuary cities and such.  My state, a GOP controlled state is so liberal that it is considered by many to be a sanctuary state.