Fascinating article about a movement afoot to break up the Union.
Some of the posters on this blog have heard of these, shall we say, unlikely "alliances" in the past; while I won't address that in the post, any of my blog mates may choose to do so in the comments or under separate cover. While I discount the viability of such alliances, one must recognize that there is a genuine frustration among the people about the degree of influence of external government; and that I think there is also a natural appeal to people of any political persuasion for the principles of balanced government. Its fundamental value proposition is that people - at the most local levels possible - get to decide how much external government they want. Regardless if you're a conservative in the South or a nut liberal from Vermont, that freedom appeals to most people.
Of course, as I've suggested before, there's a quality inherent to balanced government that lends itself to what we'd consider "conservative" principles. This is just another way of saying originalist, or, if you prefer, Constitutionally-consistent government.
For the record, I think balanced government can fix the problems that ail the Union, and preserve it intact for future generations. Indeed, there are precious few other things that have the power to do the same.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
The Future of the Union
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Mike, excellent post!
I've been waiting to link up to it at Webster's, in light of the email conversation that I could not engage earlier today because of some weird technical problem. Hopefully that is now resolved.
-Terry
Thanks Terry, welcome back btw.
I have to wonder why these folks would do all the work they need to do for the cause of secession without first looking towards fixing the government we have. We have The Constitution, which is an excellent document and would serve their goals if they would only support it with the same zeal that they are apparently using to advocate secession.
I'll grant you that a truly socialist society would be difficult to maintain under it's auspices, but if the people of a certain state were determined to take that level of personal responsibility upon themselves, it could be done. (At least for the first generation-after which, owing to the nature of such societies it would undoubtedly collapse.)
As for the Southerners who wish for more immigration control, perhaps their energy would be better spent directing congress to provide funding for the enforcement of our current laws.
Or am I missing something?
(Response to Mom)
My understanding is that it's hard to find those in government willing to take the bad press that comes with trying to enforce current border laws.
And, you know, give up/redirect money from their pet projects, Planned Parenthood, etc.
(Since I currently live much nearer the northern border, however, I am no expert on the subject.)
Mom, nope I don't think you're missing anything. It's getting through to people that's going to be the challenge. Well, one of the challenges.
Sebo, no, I think you're pretty close there: either the border gets enforced or it doesn't, and it takes guts and principles to enforce the law.
What do you think the odds are that will happen without the people constantly hammering our "representatives?"
-MT
Michael, good post, and good comments, all.
Ideally we would be able to return to Constitutionalist principles and decentralized government, with the states having more control, including the power to enforce immigration laws. But most of the candidates represent the status quo, with nobody proposing to downsize and decentralize -- except maybe Ron Paul.
There has to be an option, a recourse for when the government is no longer responsive to the will of the people, and when they no longer hew closely to the Constitution, as the case seems to be now.
-VA
VA, thank you for the comments. We've had considerable debate on the topic of what ails us since this core group got together - is it three years ago now?
Most candidates represent the status quo because that's the majority position of most Americans. That leaves reformers with two responsibilities: educate people as you and we and many bloggers are doing.
The other is to get involved away from our computers any way we can, even if it seems little and insignificant. The time is long past when people of character and morals must either take back the party from the pensioners and "get-along, go-along" crowd or start anew if that endeavor fails.
If I can borrow your excellent point and use the pool of Presidential candidates as a barometer, we have yet a long way to go, even if there is some hope.
-MT
See Auster's two sentence entry on our prospects in the event that the presidency goes to either Hillary or Rudy, and the comments to the entry. (BTW, Mike, you think we could swipe some of Auster's commenters while he ain't lookin'? ;))
Also, I said I was going to link up to this post over at Webster's, and I still intend to do so. It's just that I can't figure out which angle to take in posting on this topic. I mean, there are so many.
-Terry
Might I suggest a balanced angle?
Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments.
-MT
LOL
Mike, did you click on any of those links? I clicked on a couple of them, one of which was, best I could tell, something to do with weather conditions and forecasts.
Consistent with my new policy, I've removed some comment spam. Comment spam will henceforth be dealt with using extreme prejudice.
Post a Comment