Back to the Articles of Confederation

[redcliffsw]

Back To the Articles
Economic reasons these united States should restore the Articles of Confederation as the legitimate central government of the US
by Ron Holland

http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland22.1.html

[pamagain]

  HOLY CRAP hell just froze over again.................I actually think that was a good post and a damn fine idea for the most part. That's TWICE in like a month........I don't know if I can hang with this or not........... (walkin off into the sunset mutterin to herself)

[srkruzich]

Sounds like a awesome plan!

Oh BTW since ole president sambo signed the bill to slap wallstreet, there has not been 1 bond traded.  Get ready, its about to go to hell in the economy.

[Varmit]

Sounds like a terrible plan!  We'd have 50 states with 50 different currencies, 50 different sets of laws, and nothing to regulate them.  We did not become the greatest nation in the world by being divided.  Consider this...lets say that an area like Dearborn, that has one of the largest concentration of Muslims, begins to adopt certain aspects of sharia law, offers incentives for other muslims to move into the area.  As the population of muslims grow so does the pressure on state gov't to adopt into their law sharia aspects.  Until, eventually Mich. is under sharia law.  And it just grows from there.

[pamagain]

   Stuff like that fell under the "fine idea for the most part" part.

[redcliffsw]

Whether it's an "idea" or not, fifty (50) different currencies would be best for the fifty (50) nations
that are not part of the union.  

[Varmit]

No it woudn't.  I used to like the idea of sucession.  But think about it...what about national defense?  Did we raise one of the greatest armies this world has ever seen by being divided?  You wanna talk currencies...seems to me that ONE currency, backed by a gold standard, held by a country whose gov't is bound by a Constitution such as ours, would be best for our nation. 

Lets say we divide the nation into 50 small ones.  Kansas, being landlocked, with little to no industry, and losing more and more everyday, would their currency be very strong?  I doubt it.  Lets say that Kansas and Texas enter into trade agreements, what currency would they use?  Would people stay in kansas or move to Texas where there would be better schools, hospitals, higher standard of living?

Or take the immigration problem...Lets say Az. builds a fence, stronger border protection etc.  Now, illegals are forced into calif., Texas.  Cali. and Texas decide to impose sanctions against Az. in response.  Now, other states that may have trade or other agreements with texas and az. have to decide which to back, which would amount to even more problems.

Bottom line is this, there is a reason for the saying "United we stand, Divided we fall." 

[srkruzich]

Sounds like a terrible plan!  We'd have 50 states with 50 different currencies, 50 different sets of laws, and nothing to regulate them.  We did not become the greatest nation in the world by being divided.  Consider this...lets say that an area like Dearborn, that has one of the largest concentration of Muslims, begins to adopt certain aspects of sharia law, offers incentives for other muslims to move into the area.  As the population of muslims grow so does the pressure on state gov't to adopt into their law sharia aspects.  Until, eventually Mich. is under sharia law.  And it just grows from there.

Uhmm Varmit, it said these united states, which means a new national government.  it wasn't very well explained on that part.  And as far as currency, it specifically states a return to the gold standard which would mean all currencies in each state would be based on the price of gold so it could be traded between states rather easily.
But i do agree a common currency would be better.

[srkruzich]

NOoo the article i believe said and i am paraphrasing, we secede from this govt.  Leave washington in its own state of denial, then form a new union based on the articles of confederation thereby nullifying this current government.  What it does is leave washington where it is, and all debts it has incurred will be washingtons problem not the new unions. 

It effectively isolates washington, strips it of all power, and takes the military with it. The military will thereby go to the new union which is operated underr the articles.

No it woudn't.  I used to like the idea of sucession.  But think about it...what about national defense?  Did we raise one of the greatest armies this world has ever seen by being divided?  You wanna talk currencies...seems to me that ONE currency, backed by a gold standard, held by a country whose gov't is bound by a Constitution such as ours, would be best for our nation. 

Lets say we divide the nation into 50 small ones.  Kansas, being landlocked, with little to no industry, and losing more and more everyday, would their currency be very strong?  I doubt it.  Lets say that Kansas and Texas enter into trade agreements, what currency would they use?  Would people stay in kansas or move to Texas where there would be better schools, hospitals, higher standard of living?

Or take the immigration problem...Lets say Az. builds a fence, stronger border protection etc.  Now, illegals are forced into calif., Texas.  Cali. and Texas decide to impose sanctions against Az. in response.  Now, other states that may have trade or other agreements with texas and az. have to decide which to back, which would amount to even more problems.

Bottom line is this, there is a reason for the saying "United we stand, Divided we fall." 

[Varmit]

I disagree on the point of debt.  Take the recent extension of unemployment benefits...that money has to come from somewhere, it is then distributed to various states that pay it out accordingly.  So, then who is responsible for that debt...washington? the states? the people who recieved it?