RoR: Forum

FDR -- Turned a bad recession into the Great Depression, preventing a return to affluence until after the SOB died. New Deal started the explosive growth of the modern welfare state.

Post 1

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 2:46pm

Is GWB the new Nixon? Nixon was by far the worst president we had had since...LBJ. I am curious, in an historical context, how GWB's influence could be seen as so bad as that of anyone who has received votes so far.

Post 2

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 3:16pm

FYI - David Mayer has a blog on his rating of Presidents:

http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20080215.asp
(Edited by Jordan Zimmerman on 8/07, 3:17pm)

Post 3

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 5:23pm

Mayer's rating is very close to mine. I am glad to see Cleveland rates so high. I would have rated Andrew Johnson above averave though, he vetoed almost everything, and refused to further destroy the South. He was impeached by corrupt, vindictive Northerners. But otherwise I agree almost totally.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/07, 8:37pm)

Post 4

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 8:03pm

Jordan -- Re the link you provided: Lincoln was arguably one of the worst presidents, and certainly not in the top tier, because he established the unconstitutional principle that states could not withdraw from the union. This vastly enhanced the ability of the federal government to grow, because the first rule of negotiating is that if you have to make a deal, and can't walk away from the table, and your adversary knows this, you will get screwed over royally.

Basically, we now no longer have the ability to secede from the Union, or even threaten to do so, no matter how tyrannical the federal government becomes and no matter how blatantly they shred the Constitution.

Imagine buying a car from a dealership where you walk in trailed by a thug with an ominous bulge in his pocket, and nervously tell the salesman that you will be killed by the thug if you don't buy a car from their dealership that day -- oh, and could they please give you their best price?

Think their opening offer will be below or even at MSRP? Think they will haggle with you, instead of giving you a price bloated with every conceivable add-on charge and refusing to budge at all on this price?

Post 5

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 8:36pm

Secession is valid only to protect rights, not in order to keep violating them. The Southern states began to secede after Lincoln was properly elected president according to extant law. Following Al Gore's narcissistic 2000 performance, should all the "Blue states" have seceded? Would they have had the right to do so? If so, would Red counties in Blue states have had the right to secede? Blue towns in Red counties in Blue states? Red people in Blue towns...? Get real - states and jurisdictions don't have rights, people do. What you propose amounts to the total suppression of moral law in governance, in the name of a fantasy. The "republican form of government" clause addresses this. States do not have the right to be theocracies or aristocracies or the agents of slave mongers. The South seceded in order to continue to violate people's rights. There is no proper secession from a valid jurisdiction. Unless the Union had been acting tyrannically, there was no principle by which the South could secede. States have no rights, just limited powers. The car salesman analogy would fit if the buyer were looking for a slave and the salesmen refused to sell at any price.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/07, 11:06pm)

Post 6

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 9:59pm

From MayerBlog. This guy is smart.

Abraham Lincoln: He not only saved the Union � the peculiar status of the United States as a nation comprised of states � but also republican government, by enforcing the rule that the minority must acquiesce in the legitimate decisions made by the majority, a rule necessary for republican government to survive. Although he did so at horrible costs � the bloodiest war in American history, accompanied by expanded governmental powers and curtailed civil liberties � Lincoln did not violate the Constitution lightly. (Indeed, given the extraordinary crisis faced by the nation during his presidency, what was remarkable was the degree to which he generally adhered to the limits imposed by the Constitution on his office and national powers generally.)

Post 7

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 10:12pm

Southern apologists have to make up their mind: either Lincoln was about freeing the slaves, or he wasn�t.

On the one hand they say he wasn�t and the war never had anything to do with slavery.

On the other hand their actions betray that they knew he WAS, as they promised to secede if he were elected. And they did (well, tried to)�upon his MERE ELECTION.

Post 8

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - 11:03pm

Jordan -- Re the link you provided: Lincoln was arguably one of the worst presidents, and certainly not in the top tier, because he established the unconstitutional principle that states could not withdraw from the union. This vastly enhanced the ability of the federal government to grow, because the first rule of negotiating is that if you have to make a deal, and can't walk away from the table, and your adversary knows this, you will get screwed over royally.

This is beyond the scope of this thread. However, David Mayer has a detailed and rational argument on why states do _not_ have the right to secede (I hope I'm not paraphrasing him wrong).

Post 9

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 5:54am

On MayerBlog, the author claims Clinton was the worst, because of his relationship with Monica, and his lying denying that incident.

I don't really see how that incident had much influence on my life. I wouldn't even think about that when thinking about how good of a President Clinton was.

Post 10

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 7:17am

"I wouldn't even think about that when thinking about how good of a President Clinton was."

---I think that his lack of character and fidelity in office are related to his socialistic beliefs. His affair with Monica Lewinsky, like his big government ideas, were the result of an irrational and immoral mind both in his personal and private life. I dare say that our Founding Fathers would find his behaviour in both spheres reprehensible.

Post 11

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 9:33am

I'm not defending the slavery practiced by the states that pulled out of the Union to form the Confederation, but rather their right to secede. The 13 original colonies voluntarily entered into a compact to have the federal government provide a strictly limited number of enumerated services. Other states voluntarily joined in that same compact.

Perhaps someone can provide a link to the specific legal document that these states signed that explicitly waived their right to withdraw from the Union even if the federal government assumed powers that they are not allowed by this original compact, the Constitution, and started oppressing the residents in ways described as the rationale for the Declaration of Independence?

Does anyone here have the temerity to suggest that the federal government is strictly following the Constitution?

I would argue that states have the right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason whatsoever. But, for the sake of exploring the underlying argument, let's temporarily assume that isn't the case.

Is it anyone's position here that states have no rights whatsoever to secede from the Union, no matter what the federal government does to them? How would one reconcile that with the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly refutes that notion? Does anyone here care to argue that if you enter into a contract and the other party egregious and repeatedly violates their end of the bargain, you have no right to declare the contract voided by their default, and that you should be compelled to continue adhering to your end of the contract, and that such coercion would be just and proper?

Post 12

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 10:31am

I voted for LBJ because his "War on Poverty" is costing us hundreds of billions of dollars every year to be continued despite each year of failure to magically remove the so-called poverty level of living in the United States.

Post 13

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 12:57pm

Jim:

I'm not defending the slavery practiced by the states that pulled out of the Union to form the Confederation, but rather their right to secede.

They seceded Jim because they wanted to continue slavery. No government has the legitimate authority to secede from anything in order to perpetuate a crime against humanity. No government has a right to secede for just any reason, only if it is to establish a more free government than previously existed.

Perhaps someone can provide a link to the specific legal document that these states signed that explicitly waived their right to withdraw from the Union....

Red herring. I do not care what a piece of paper says, if someone uses it to justify the perpetuation of institutionalized slave labor camps, they deserve to get their asses beaten to the ground, and thankfully the North did just that.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/08, 1:01pm)

Post 14

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 1:23pm

There is no valid secession from just jurisdiction.

If the governing action of a political body is morally just, then subordinate political bodies cannot unilaterally remove themselves from that jurisdiction. Jim, you said "I would argue that states have the right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason whatsoever. " Even I don't think you mean this. But again, states have no rights. You are treating politics as an intrinsic primary. Politics are subordinate to ethics. A state cannot arbitrarily remove its citizens from Federal citizenship. Government must be subordinate to moral principle. You have not addressed the logical implications of your belief. If states can secede, why not counties, towns, neighborhoods, individuals? By advocating states rights as a primary, you are advocating anarchy.

Post 15

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 1:56pm

People have a right to form a government to secure their rights. So in that sense I don't think it's a misnomer to say a state has a right to do (x) because in that context we are talking about individuals forming a government to accomplish a particular end (e.g. secession).

Post 16

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 6:27pm

John said: "They seceded Jim because they wanted to continue slavery. No government has the legitimate authority to secede from anything in order to perpetuate a crime against humanity."

As someone put it, the Civil War was about a quibble over terminology: Whether it should be "THE United States" or "THESE United States".

Abraham Lincoln unambiguously said that the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union, and that he was willing to allow slavery to continue if that would preserve the Union. From Yahoo Answers:

Contrary to some beliefs, Lincoln was not waging a war to end slavery but to preserve the Union. He said "If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing no slaves, I would keep them all in bondage. If I could preserve the Union by freeing some and leaving others enslaved, I would do that."

From Wikipedia:

"Before the American Civil War and even on the war's early stages Lincoln said that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery in states where it already existed. His position and the position of the Republican Party in 1860 was that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories, and thus all future states admitted to the Union would be free states."

If you and I enter into a contract, and later on you have second thoughts about the morality of that contract and seek to unilaterally change the terms of that contract to remove the clause you feel is immoral, do you have the right to pull a gun and force me to accept these revised terms?

Assume for the sake of argument that the Southern states had refused to join the Union in the 1700s, and had set up their own nation called the Confederate States of America. Would the Northern states be justified in 1861 in raising an army and invading the South in an attempt to compel this sovereign nation to join the Union and end their practice of slavery? If not, how is that any different in practical terms from the North in 1861 raising an army and invading a newly formed sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America, in an attempt to compel them to join the Union and end the practice of slavery? Are you saying that the longer a nation has existed, the more legitimate their abuses of human liberty are?

And, if Mexico has some laws that you consider immoral, would we be justified in invading them and compelling them to join the Union in an attempt to end those practices? How about Saudi Arabia? Surely that despotic regime treats its subject horribly -- why not invade them? How about invading most of Africa? Communist China? Russia under Putin?

***

Ted said: "If the governing action of a political body is morally just, then subordinate political bodies cannot unilaterally remove themselves from that jurisdiction. Jim, you said "I would argue that states have the right to secede from the Union at any time for any reason whatsoever. " Even I don't think you mean this."

Ted, that is what I said. That is precisely what I meant. And I would submit that the current governing action of the United States is not, in many if not most important respects, morally just. Further, as I have already noted, a signicant chunk of that immorality is the direct consequence of Lincoln's huge power grab by the federal government, in its immoral and unjust abrogation of the right of states to secede, thereby fatally weakening their negotiating power and upsetting an important check and balance.

Yes, I completely agree that the enslavement of human beings by the Southern states was unquestionably wrong. But, thanks to Lincoln, now everyone in the U.S. has a somewhat less thorough but rapidly growing degree of enslavement by the federal government.

Post 17

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 7:36pm

Jim:

John said: "They seceded Jim because they wanted to continue slavery. No government has the legitimate authority to secede from anything in order to perpetuate a crime against humanity."

As someone put it, the Civil War was about a quibble over terminology: Whether it should be "THE United States" or "THESE United States".

Abraham Lincoln unambiguously said that the purpose of the war was to preserve the Union, and that he was willing to allow slavery to continue if that would preserve the Union. From Yahoo Answers:

Contrary to some beliefs, Lincoln was not waging a war to end slavery but to preserve the Union. He said "If I could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. If I could preserve the Union by freeing no slaves, I would keep them all in bondage. If I could preserve the Union by freeing some and leaving others enslaved, I would do that."

I realize a lot of anarchists like to put their spin on history. But the context here was the North and South as separate nations would've begun competing with each other for admitting new territories as states into their respective nations, which would have lead to an armed conflict at some time in the future anyways had Lincoln not waged the conflict at the time that he did. And Lincoln's stated reasons for the war are inconsequential to a moral analysis of this war and the South's actions. Clearly the South didn't believe Lincoln that he would leave slavery alone, and felt threatened that despite what Lincoln said, that his election would eventually lead to the abolishment of slavery, as one of Lincoln's heavy constituencies were the New England states that had pushed for abolishing slavery for decades. But again, Lincoln's motives do not excuse the South's secession which was done for the reason of perpetuating a system of institutionalized slave labor camps. I mean I think that fact alone should squash any risk of moral ambiguity here.

If you and I enter into a contract, and later on you have second thoughts about the morality of that contract and seek to unilaterally change the terms of that contract to remove the clause you feel is immoral, do you have the right to pull a gun and force me to accept these revised terms?

I mean really, are you serious? Or are you just pulling my leg? Do you have a right to enter into a contract that permits slavery? Unreal. Did the slaves get a say in that contract Jim? Yes, you do have a right to pull out a gun and stop someone from committing a crime against humanity. You betcha.

Assume for the sake of argument that the Southern states had refused to join the Union in the 1700s, and had set up their own nation called the Confederate States of America. Would the Northern states be justified in 1861 in raising an army and invading the South in an attempt to compel this sovereign nation to join the Union and end their practice of slavery?

YES! Of course it would be justified in doing that. It's a little disturbing you seem to imply such a thing, namely ending slavery, would be unjust?

Wow, just wow.

And, if Mexico has some laws that you consider immoral, would we be justified in invading them and compelling them to join the Union in an attempt to end those practices?

If they were immoral (and when you qualify the question with "I" you seem to imply morality is entirely subjective?), then the US would be justified in ending those practices. But it would not have an obligation to end those practices (unless that nation threatened the interests of the US in which it would become an obligation). And if it chose to end those practices as a moral choice, it would have to weigh the benefits and the consequences of those actions.

Post 18

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 7:51pm

Jim:

How about Saudi Arabia? Surely that despotic regime treats its subject horribly -- why not invade them? How about invading most of Africa? Communist China? Russia under Putin?

The question of invading Russia or China is not one of justification, it's one of stupidity. Choosing to invade either of those countries would just be stupid, because they have such a massive military with a nuclear arsenal to boot that it would likely lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. When weighing the benefits and costs of a war with either of those countries, it would be clear the costs severely outweigh the benefits.

Post 19

Saturday, August 9, 2008 - 11:40am