After watching a YouTube video on the decentralization of government, I’m finding myself intrigued by the concept and am hoping to hear some feedback as to how others may view this concept. In our current political structure, a centralized form of federal government, I find we are all continuously at odds with one another and more often than not, nothing meaningful ever really gets done. We have large groups of people who want an entirely socialist society and those who want full on capitalism, and of course everyone else across the spectrum. Due to this, we can never truly go forward with a political ideology while simultaneously maintaining a free and fair society. It doesn’t matter if you come up with the fairest and most perfect form of governance and economic model, you will immediately have to taint it the second you attempt to implement it as, of course, there will always be very large groups of people who oppose it. The only possible way to implement anything in our current situation is by adopting levels of authoritarian rule, even if it’s a minority of people in opposition, you still have to force them to comply with a policy against their will. In a decentralized government this is not the case, or at least not on such a large scale. Towns and cities would govern themselves, implementing their own laws and economic models. A community that favored socialism would easily be able to adopt it, and those of us who opposed it would not be forced into it just because others wanted it. If you lived in a town that did become socialist, you could easily pack up and move fifty miles to the next capitalist town, and in the event of a failed policy only the town in question would be hurt, rather than disaster for an entire country. You could easily implement and experiment with new ideas and policies, and the consequences of them failing would be minimized and contained. I also think this would help to start creating a stronger sense of community as most who choose to live in any given area would likely identify with the ideologies of their neighbors, and actually feel like their voice is heard and matters. And not to mention it would absolutely minimize the capacity for a corrupt government to grow and expand its influence. On the face of it, I really think this could be a legitimate way forward, but it would be a difficult transition period.
I’ll attach the video I watched at the bottom, and look forward to hearing your opinions.
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.“Psychopaths poses traits very useful to those who desire power. The best way to deal with the threat that these people pose is to limit the power they can obtain, and thus the damage they can do, and again this is best achieved through decentralization.” Narrator
Look for example George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Robert Morris, and John Adams who were all members of the Nationalist Party hidden behind a false Federalist Party fraud.
“There is nothing in the constitution of men or states that can prevent the rise of dictators...Power maniacs exist everywhere...The only difference lies in the degree of tyrannical government which, in turn, depends once more on the size of power of the countries falling victims to it.” (Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations)
The size of the group of people wanting government (look into the work of Thomas Paine) merely demands a representative form instead of a democratic form.
“Not all people desire to live in communities organized under the same social institutions. Some people favor free markets, while others believe that socialism is a far more just way to organize a society.” Narrator
Wrong, the problem is that some people favor criminal forms of government (involuntary association also known as “subsidized slavery”...), while other people favor voluntary associations for mutual defense, or for other reasons, with the basic principle of voluntary association as the foundation of government.
“If freedom of choice is considered an advantage economically, why not also politically? For, with a great multitude of systems prevailing in an area inhabited by hundreds of millions of people, it becomes mathematically inevitable that far more individuals are able to obtain what their hearts desire than if the same region were to permit only a single system, even as in a restaurant many more people can obtain satisfaction if the menu includes a great variety of dishes rather than a single one which can be made palatable to all only through the propaganda of the cook.” (Leopold Kohr)
Again, those who favor involuntary association (subsidized slavery) are criminals, and they gain power by criminal means, including deception, threat of aggressive violence, and very well demonstrated aggressive violence by criminals upon victims. If people conflate involuntary association with voluntary association, as if both are the same thing, then people will confuse actual government, based upon actual law power, with the opposite, which is counterfeit government, fake government, and RULE BY CRIMINAL MEANS. If people conflate the two then two obvious results are:
-
Actual government, and actual law, which is voluntary association, grows weaker as people confuse the actual government with the counterfeit version.
-
Counterfeit government grows stronger as the victims of it are led away from actual law power.
“A radically decentralized world localizes the impact of institutional failure while centralization universalizes it.” Narrator?
“It is the barriers, then, which are detrimental to human development, not the protecting boundaries whose function is to keep things within healthy limits.” (Leopold)
The Barrier in place against any crime (any clear and present danger to anyone by any criminal foreign or domestic) is The Law, which is Accurate Accountability of the facts that matter in any case of conflict whatsoever, anywhere, and any time, by anyone, including someone claiming to be a government agent. When people have this lawful power as individuals, to sit on independent grand juries, and work in independent trial juries, then no one is above the law, not even people claiming to be the Fearless Leader of the Free World.
“Now, more than ever, the world needs more boundaries, not fewer. Instead of forcing conflicting groups to fight for State Power, in the hopes that with such power they can impose their views on all, why not let those who disagree live in peace in their own communities. In so doing power will be dispersed among far more people and the risk of (garbled) greatly diminished. If on the other hand we continue moving in the direction of more centralization, if we increasingly tear down boundaries, we will not be creating a freer world, rather we will only be permitting the concentration of power in the hand of ever fewer people. Narrator
The boundary that is missing is the boundary between criminals (with or without counterfeit badges) and victims, and that boundary is a clear and present FACT that the criminal will not get away with the crime (crime no longer pays very well) because the lawful barrier is in place, as individual people command lawful jurisdiction both civil and criminal in grand and trial juries.
“To the extent that government is strong, the individual is weak, with the result that even if his title is citizen his position is that of subject” (garbled)
Monopoly, so-called, is merely the means by which the criminals destroy competition in all free markets, including free markets of government. The natural order is thereby put up-side-down, and rather than humankind adapting, humankind is forced toward extinction for failing to adapt.
This is not news.
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”
Josf-Kelley
Level 8
Jan 31, 2020
1
It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead.
There needs to be a balance between local control and experimentation - states and towns, and central control that benefits everyone.
In particular, the bit about "some people want to live in communities primarily of their own ethnicity" at 6:10 in the video, tips the hand and shows us what this guy is really all about.
In particular, you can't "vote with your feet" if some states or local areas won't let you leave, or won't let you come in due to race or some other factor. National defense won't work for small countries, and the larger, strong countries will dominate. Shared large problems like water use, climate change, pollution, overfishing, and treaties will become impossible without larger countries that have real governments and power.
damo9f
Level 5
Jan 31, 2020
0
"It's a mix. We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead."
That is false. "We" did no such thing. If the play is worth the candle then getting rid of the voluntary association for mutual defense (Federation: Articles of Confederation) would have improved the power of America to defend against psychopaths taking over the former lawful government, turning the former lawful government into despotic tyranny.
"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
LETTER XIII.
JANUARY 14, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America
"National defense won't work for small countries, and the larger, strong countries will dominate."
The (voluntary) Federation was criminally usurped and in place was a criminal Corporate Nation-State, and that is uncontroversial. Those who claim to "argue" the facts that matter in the case - as a rule - will resort to deception.
@Josf-Kelley I am missing the point of your comment. Pls clarify.
"We tried this in the USA with the Articles of Confederation, which failed, so we needed to form the United States instead."
During the time between 1774 and 1789 people volunteered to join forces for mutual defense, and during that time a Federation was formed and documented as such in the Articles of Confederation.
You now claim that something failed, and then you claim that "we needed to form the United States instead."
My response is that we did no such thing. Some people claimed that the Federal government under the Articles of Confederation were not centralized enough. That is the basis of your claim that you now make. Many people claimed otherwise. Therefore there is no "we" to support your claim. We did not need to form the United States instead, as you claim.
In fact, the United States of America was already formed at the time that the United States of America was replaced with the United States. So...your claim is baseless unless you have some way of showing how your claim is based upon something.
Example:
Articles of Confederation: March 1, 1781
"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
That is the Confederacy known as The United States of America.
There were a number of Presidents before the Confederation was replaced with a Nation-State. One was Thomas McKean.
Thomas McKean (DE)
2nd President of the United States
in Congress Assembled
July 10, 1781 to November 5, 1781
One reason for the change from a voluntary Confederation to a Nation-State was a desire to Tax everyone in every State so as to FUND National Debt from a Central Bank: Centralization.
We (all of us) did not need to get rid of the Federation (Confederation), which was a voluntary association for mutual defense, but some people did "need" to Tax everyone in America to Fund National Debt.
I hope that helps to clear things up.
If not then consider reading the message quoted from Richard Henry Lee, who was the 6th President of the United States of America during the Confederation period. The point he makes is that the Articles of Confederation, if "it" failed, was a failure to keep corruption out of the Federal Government. The change from a Federation (voluntary association) to a Nation-State made it harder not easier to keep corruption out of the Federal Government. So if what you say is true, that the Articles of Confederation failed, then the Constitution of 1789 failed even worse by that measure of failing to keep corruption out of the Centralized government.
So, the point offered is to point out that "we" did not need to change the voluntary mutual defense association, known as a federation, into a central bank scheme where everyone is made to pay into National Debt. We did no such thing, and those who did that have names.
Example:
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Governments are responsible..."
That is a fundamental falsehood. If the deceiver can convince the target to blame something rather than the actual person or persons responsible, then the deceiver can escape accountability.
I want to listen to the whole message, but it sure does start off on a foundation made of quick sand.
The reason for "decentralization" in lawful matters (government) is the natural law that places human moral conscience in individuals. Centralization (so-called) is a method of deception, by which the deceivers convince the targets that "collective" conscience (as enforced by specific people) over-rules individual conscience. The individual is subject to the dictates of those people who claim to speak for everyone: The State.
This is why natural law tends to cause people to invent such processes as Trial by The Country, also known as The Law of the Land, which is trial by jury and the common law. Each individual in a group (society) is afforded the power to nullify any claim of authority by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Therefore the individual sovereign commander of the law power is supreme. The individual is supreme and The State is subject to the individual: decentralization.
I hope that helps.
Josf-Kelley
Level 8
Jan 31, 2020
0
I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization. They wanted the states to be experiments which people could easily partake in or move elsewhere. The Constitution limits the power granted to the federal government. The rest belong to the states or the people. The founding fathers also stated that human rights come from God, not government.
Unfortunately, we have fallen far from those founding ideals. Most of what the federal government does has no constitutional authority. The more power that is shifted away from world and national government, towards state, local and the family the better.
Marcoullier
Level 6
Jan 31, 2020
0
"I believe the founding fathers of the United States agreed with this idea of decentralization."
No, that is false.
The so-called "founding fathers" were demonstrably (according to their published words) on two sides:
- Centralization (The falsely named Federalist Party)
- Decentralization (The falsely named "Anti" Federalist Party)
If that is unclear to anyone, then perhaps some study is in order.
@Josf-Kelley naturally there was arguments about how much power to delegate to the federal government. I didn't mean to imply there was no debate. What was settled on was a republic with a constitution that gave a list of specific duties for the federal government. Which is mostly ignored today.
Naturally, there was treasonous fraud involved. You can call it whatever you want.
The false Federalist Party were Nationalists, the Nationalists consolidated (centralized) the States, as was their unstated, but obvious, aim.
The word Federal was understood to be the opposite of National at the time. Those against the Nationalization of the existing Federal Constitution were - if words mean anything - federalists.
"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."
Secret proceedings and debates of the convention assembled at Philadelphia, in the year 1787, Page 13, Luther Martin
The Nationalists confessed during the Secret (illegal) Proceedings in Philadelphia, see for example the following publication.
From Papers of Dr. James McHenry on [at] the Federal [National] Convention of 1787.
"Mr. E. Gerry. Does not rise to speak to the merits of the question before the Committee but to the mode.
“A distinction has been made between a federal and national government. We ought not to determine that there is this distinction for if we do, it is questionable not only whether this convention can propose an government totally different or whether Congress itself would have a right to pass such a resolution as that before the house. The commission from Massachusets empowers the deputies to proceed agreeably to the recommendation of Congress. This the foundation of the convention. If we have a right to pass this resolution we have a right to annihilate the confederation."
Those against the Centralization (consolidation) of the many States in competitive Liberty blew the whistle on the Con game at the Con Con, and subsequent illegal RATification.
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
“He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists.”
June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.”
1787
Richard Henry Lee
"But what do we mean by a federal republic and what by a consolidated government? To erect a federal republic, we must first make a number of states on republican principles; each state with a government organized for the internal management of its affairs: The states, as such, must unite under a federal head, and delegate to it powers to make and execute laws in certain enumerated cases, under certain restrictions; this head may be a single assembly, like the present congress, or the Amphictionic council; or it may consist of a legislature, with one or more branches; of an executive, and of a judiciary. To form a consolidated, or one entire government, there[163] must be no state, or local governments, but all things, persons and property, must be subject to the laws of one legislature alone; to one executive, and one judiciary.”
June 6, 1788
George Mason:
Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws. Now, suppose oppressions should arise under this government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of those powers; could not Congress, under the idea of providing for the general welfare, and under their own construction, say that this was destroying the general peace, encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury?
Robert Yates, Brutus I, October 18, 1787:
"The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state at least, with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriving their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states."
June 17, 1788
George Mason:
Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.
Those against the move to centralize were federalists, if words have meaning.
Rhode Island Is Right!
The Massachusetts Gazette, December 7, 1787
“The abuse which has been thrown upon the state of Rhode Island seems to be greatly unmerited. Popular favor is variable, and those who are now despised and insulted may soon change situations with the present idols of the people. Rhode Island has out done even Pennsylvania in the glorious work of freeing the Negroes in this country, without which the patriotism of some states appears ridiculous. The General Assembly of the state of Rhode Island has prevented the further importation of Negroes, and have made a law by which all blacks born in that state after March, 1784, are absolutely and at once free.
“They have fully complied with the recommendations of Congress in regard to the late treaty of peace with Great Britain, and have passed an act declaring it to be the law of the land. They have never refused their quota of taxes demanded by Congress, excepting the five per cent impost, which they considered as a dangerous tax, and for which at present there is perhaps no great necessity, as the western territory, of which a part has very lately been sold at a considerable price, may soon produce an immense revenue; and, in the interim, Congress may raise in the old manner the taxes which shall be found necessary for the support of the government.
“The state of Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Federal Convention, and the event has manifested that their refusal was a happy one as the new constitution, which the Convention has proposed to us, is an elective monarchy, which is proverbially the worst government. This new government would have been supported at a vast expense, by which our taxes - the right of which is solely vested in Congress, (a circumstance which manifests that the various states of the union will be merely corporations) - would be doubled or trebled.
“The liberty of the press is not stipulated for, and therefore may be invaded at pleasure. The supreme continental court is to have, almost in every case, "appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact," which signifies, if there is any meaning in words, the setting aside the trial by jury. Congress will have the power of guaranteeing to every state a right to import Negroes for twenty one years, by which some of the states, who have now declined that iniquitous traffic, may re-enter into it - for the private laws of every state are to submit to the superior jurisdiction of Congress. A standing army is to be kept on foot, by which the vicious, the sycophantick, and the time-serving will be exalted, and the brave, the patriotic, and the virtuous will be depressed.
“The writer, therefore, thinks it the part of wisdom to abide, like the state of Rhode Island, by the old articles of confederation, which, if re-examined with attention, we shall find worthy of great regard; that we should give high praise to the manly and public spirited sixteen members, who lately seceded from our house of Assembly [in Pennsylvania]; and that we should all impress with great care, this truth on our minds - That it is very easy to change a free government into an arbitrary one, but that it is very difficult to convert tyranny into freedom.”
Again:
“There are but two modes by which men are connected in society, the one which operates on individuals, this always has been, and ought still to be called, national government; the other which binds States and governments together (not corporations, for there is no considerable nation on earth, despotic, monarchical, or republican, that does not contain many subordinate corporations with various constitutions) this last has heretofore been denominated a league or confederacy. The term federalists is therefore improperly applied to themselves, by the friends and supporters of the proposed constitution. This abuse of language does not help the cause; every degree of imposition serves only to irritate, but can never convince. They are national men, and their opponents, or at least a great majority of them, are federal, in the only true and strict sense of the word.”
A Farmer
March 7, 1788
If words are used to perpetrate a treasonous fraud such as “centralization,” then that is what happened. It was not an argument.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.