Page 2 of 48 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 472

Thread: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    91,395

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    The intent of the Electoral College is to represent the Presidential preference of the various states, not the individual people.
    by the way - states are an artificial creation in law. There are no such things as states without the people that actually comprise them. State cannot have any interests without the interests of the actual people who constitute the state in the first place.

    Remove the artificial entity of a state and you still have the people with their interests.
    Remove the people from the states and you have no states and thus no interests.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    91,395

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    The problem is that the True Democracy you exhort is the true end of the Federal Republic.
    A true democracy is one in which the people directly are the government - picture New England town hall government. Obviously in a nation our size that is not even possible nor practical.

    We have a republican form of government by constitutional mandate and a democratic republic would still be a republic. Getting rid of the EC does not change that.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #13
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,757
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    by the way - states are an artificial creation in law. There are no such things as states without the people that actually comprise them. State cannot have any interests without the interests of the actual people who constitute the state in the first place.

    Remove the artificial entity of a state and you still have the people with their interests.
    Remove the people from the states and you have no states and thus no interests.
    Argued like a true globalist.

    However, "States" are not formed in a vacuum, they are formed by diverse groupings of people.

    For example. Europe is arguably the locale of people with pale skin and bright colored eyes. One could argue this makes them all one in the same.

    Yet this monochromal group ended up being divided into Germans, Greeks, Swedes, Scots, Irish, etc. Even under the EU they constantly disagree on local grounds.

    In the far east we have China, a united land currently but once a land divided by States with differing languages both before and after the First Emperor. Even today most Chinese still speak local dialects and consider themselves Han, Manchu, Hui, and a dozen other ethnic groups while learning one "official language."

    Human beings are "Tribal" and "Clannish," identifying with family first, then local affiliations, then state affiliations, and finally national prides. We are a mishmash of diverse belief systems, races, and opinions, not one mass conglomeration.

    States are, to paraphrase your own statement, "groupings of people with similar interests." Thus you are actually arguing for their valid existence, and in fact providing your own refutation as to their value.

    People in Iowa don't think the way people in New York do and vice-versa.

    They need to feel properly represented in the central government or there will be a drive to secede and take care of their own affairs more locally.

    The Congress, where the real power lies, is where our Founding Fathers provided democratic representation. The President was supposed to be a figure who was obligated in some way to all the people of the various States.

    Hence, the electoral college which balances the Tyranny of the Majority in Congress with a "ruler" answerable to all the people.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-21-18 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It is NOT 1787 anymore. Once upon a time in a land that realistically no longer exists, people were born in one place, grew up in that same place, worked and lived in that same place, married and had kids in that same place, and then died in that same place. That was the general rule although there were exceptions. Lots and lots of people - most people actually - did not go more than 100 miles from the place they were born ever.

    And those people identified with those places and called themselves Virginians or New Yorkers or Georgians or Pennsylvanians and their state was their identity. But a century went past and then another and now people are born in Michigan and move to Indiana where they go to school, and then go to college in Mississippi and take jobs over forty years in Texas and then Oregon and then Idaho and finally in Ohio. And they met somebody and fell in love with a person with a whole different history of their own. And if they are lucky they can retire in sunny Florida or Arizona. And their three kids were born in two different states and when thy got older they went to colleges in Massachusetts and Illinois and one even went to Michigan. And they married people with different histories as well.

    So today we are no longer a Massachusetts man or a Virginian or an Oklahoman. Today we are Americans. We are one nation. We are one people. And the President is President for all regardless of the community or residence.

    As I said, its not 1787 any longer and the mechanism that may have worked then is badly out of date.
    I was born in Minnesota where I went to school and am still awaiting the successful completion of the rebuilding program for their football program begun in 1968.

    However, If I desire to live in the hubbub of a large city or in the isolation of a mountain top, my desires for and demands of the local government would be vastly different.

    In New York City, my feelings on the regulations guiding the installation of my septic system would depart greatly from my same feeling living in the Rocky Mountains. In one place it's needed and in the other, not so much.

    The same is true of gun ownership, neighborhood watch groups or regulations governing the use of the creek running through my property.

    Being able to count the votes is NOT the issue here.

    People in different situations need and desire different things.

    We might all be Americans, but that means that we are a group of groups. Each group is significant and needs representation.

    You are endorsing what Hamilton referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority".

    Tyranny is tyranny. To the folks of the Blue States, Tyranny is more desired. To the folks of the Red States, it is less so.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-21-18 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    by the way - states are an artificial creation in law. There are no such things as states without the people that actually comprise them. State cannot have any interests without the interests of the actual people who constitute the state in the first place.

    Remove the artificial entity of a state and you still have the people with their interests.
    Remove the people from the states and you have no states and thus no interests.
    What are you endorsing in this?

    Without states, either the Various states as defined in the Constitution or the Nation States as recognized world wide, there is anarchy.

    People organize into units that allow the regulation of activity for protection of the weaker from the actions of the stronger.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  6. #16
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Imagine if the following scenario were the way sports operated.

    Dad takes Junior to a basketball game and its the kids first actual live game. They live in Michigan and are watching the Pistons.

    Here is the scoring for each quarter.

    1st quarter: Lakers 24 - Pistons 23
    2nd quarter Lakers 25 - Detroit 24
    3rd quarter Lakers 31 - Detroit 29
    4th quarter Pistons 36 - Lakers 21

    Final score Pistons 112 - Lakers 101

    As they leave the arena Junior is beaming from ear to ear since the home team won. Dad is not so happy nor are most of the exiting Detroit fans.

    Junior: That was a great game Dad. I am glad Detroit won.
    Dad: Well they did outscore the Lakers son, but we lost the game.
    Junior: No Dad - we won 112 to 101. We scored the most points.
    Dad: Well son, the league changed the rules to make sure every quarter was hard fought. They put in a system where the winner of each quarter gets one point and the one who scores the most points in the game gets an additional point. Since Los Angeles won three quarters they earned three points and Detroit who won only one quarter and the most points in the game got only two points. So the Lakers win three points to two.
    Son: Thats stupid. Every kid knows that when you get the most points you win. Adults are really dumb.
    Dad: Well son, did I ever tell you about the Electoral College?
    First, your analogy doesn't fit the situation. FAIL

    The "winner" doesn't go on to push policy that impacts everyone living in the Nation.

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-21-18 @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,242

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    A true democracy is one in which the people directly are the government - picture New England town hall government. Obviously in a nation our size that is not even possible nor practical.

    We have a republican form of government by constitutional mandate and a democratic republic would still be a republic. Getting rid of the EC does not change that.
    A "Democratic Republic" and a "Federal Republic" are vastly different things.

    A Constitutional Monarchy and a Dictatorial Monarchy are also vastly different things even though they share a word in the description.

    You rightly cited the New England town hall. This is a device that brings the power of government closer to the people.

    What you are asking for is a device that removes the power of government further from the people.

    A Democratic Republic on the scale of the USA would in effect be an oligarchy. We are already dangerously close to that sorry state of affairs.

    The further we can withdraw from sending more power to DC, the better off we will all be.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    91,395

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Argued like a true globalist.

    However, "States" are not formed in a vacuum, they are formed by diverse groupings of people.

    For example. Europe is arguably the locale of people with pale skin and bright colored eyes. One could argue this makes them all one in the same.

    Yet this monochromal group ended up being divided into Germans, Greeks, Swedes, Scots, Irish, etc. Even under the EU they constantly disagree on local grounds.

    In the far east we have China, a united land currently but once a land divided by States with differing languages both before and after the First Emperor. Even today most Chinese still speak local dialects and consider themselves Han, Manchu, Hui, and a dozen other ethnic groups while learning one "official language."

    Human beings are "Tribal" and "Clannish," identifying with family first, then local affiliations, then state affiliations, and finally national prides. We are a mishmash of diverse belief systems, races, and opinions, not one mass conglomeration.

    States are, to paraphrase your own statement, "groupings of people with similar interests." Thus you are actually arguing for their valid existence, and in fact providing your own refutation as to their value.

    People in Iowa don't think the way people in New York do and vice-versa.

    They need to feel properly represented in the central government or there will be a drive to secede and take care of their own affairs more locally.

    The Congress, where the real power lies, is where our Founding Fathers provided democratic representation. The President was supposed to be a figure who was obligated in some way to all the people of the various States.

    Hence, the electoral college which balances the Tyranny of the Majority in Congress with a "ruler" answerable to all the people.
    Not one thing you said there actually dealt with the substance of my post.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    91,395

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    I was born in Minnesota where I went to school and am still awaiting the successful completion of the rebuilding program for their football program begun in 1968.

    However, If I desire to live in the hubbub of a large city or in the isolation of a mountain top, my desires for and demands of the local government would be vastly different.

    In New York City, my feelings on the regulations guiding the installation of my septic system would depart greatly from my same feeling living in the Rocky Mountains. In one place it's needed and in the other, not so much.

    The same is true of gun ownership, neighborhood watch groups or regulations governing the use of the creek running through my property.

    Being able to count the votes is NOT the issue here.

    People in different situations need and desire different things.

    We might all be Americans, but that means that we are a group of groups. Each group is significant and needs representation.

    You are endorsing what Hamilton referred to as "The Tyranny of the Majority".

    Tyranny is tyranny. To the folks of the Blue States, Tyranny is more desired. To the folks of the Red States, it is less so.
    Reality proves you wrong as people in all fifty states can be found on all sides of issues and for and against all manner of candidates and political parties. .

    So you prefer a tyranny of the minority? That goes against a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:17 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    91,395

    Re: The Federalist Papers by ‘Publius’ (1788)

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    What are you endorsing in this?

    Without states, either the Various states as defined in the Constitution or the Nation States as recognized world wide, there is anarchy.

    People organize into units that allow the regulation of activity for protection of the weaker from the actions of the stronger.
    That is utterly absurd that without different states there is anarchy. You could abolish the individual states tomorrow and there would NOT be anarchy.

    I am simply endorsing that the presidency be discussed by a straight vote of the people.
    Last edited by haymarket; 08-21-17 at 11:02 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Page 2 of 48 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •