tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post2523626690903429671..comments2023-11-30T10:43:33.130-06:00Comments on Reading Freely: Ain't My AmericaStephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-66460329231498368042016-01-31T21:26:22.394-06:002016-01-31T21:26:22.394-06:00Are you thinking along the lines of an Article V c...Are you thinking along the lines of an Article V convention? I haven't heard anything about one lately. Honestly, I don't think many Americans are even aware of most of our elementary legal protections, beyond the first amendment.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-46712818839501016662016-01-31T21:19:06.854-06:002016-01-31T21:19:06.854-06:00It's not so much a case of outright conquest a...It's not so much a case of outright conquest as more subtle inversion. Take the income tax: before it became permanent in 1913, the federal government was dependent on the revenue the state governments sent it. If D.C. misbehaved, it was possible for states to simply..not pay. I don't know if they ever did, but it was an available option. After the income tax, though, D.C began exacting revenue from individuals directly, bypassing the states, and that turned out so effective that now a lot of states constantly dependent on Federal funding to pay for basic things -- like infrastructure grants. Not interstates, mind you, but infrastructure like municipal pipes. Now, not only is a potential brake against national-level abuse removed, but the fear of losing those grants silences a lot of griping. It's not a healthy balance of power.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-51386042347736547522016-01-31T12:16:33.237-06:002016-01-31T12:16:33.237-06:00Stephen, somewhat related to all of this is my int...Stephen, somewhat related to all of this is my interest in a current grass-roots movement toward something like a states' rights constitutional convention; if it can happen, it might be transformative, but I fear that too much power is centered in D.C. and corporate interests for any sort of reassessment and realignment of states' rights v. federal/central powers. But I could be quite wrong about all of this. In any case, my life -- nearly over -- will not be severely affected, but I have concerns for generations that follow. RTDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17113953356514605424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-22864093635317564232016-01-31T09:43:43.412-06:002016-01-31T09:43:43.412-06:00I think that the US certainly had early Imperial a...I think that the US certainly had early Imperial ambitions - that really can't be denied - but I think you have to run (if not rule) other countries to be an Imperial Power (rather than a Super Power). If you administered Canada, Mexico and where expanding control into South America I'd certainly call that Imperial.<br /><br />I don't think most countries started out as Nation States - England didn't (as you know from Cornwell [grin]), nor did Germany - which only became a Nation in 1871 - nor Italy. France only slowly became a Nation after the English were kicked out after the Hundred Years War. I get the whole thing about State independence from the Federal government (although my knowledge of US history - and especially politics - is rather sketchy) but from this distance I don't see Washington annexing the rest of the US. Maybe that's because I'm geographically divorced from the day-to-day stuff?<br /><br />It's entirely possible that the future EU will be (in effect) a Nation State with a capital probably in Berlin. I imagine that it's governance will be something like the UK presently - with London as the Capital but with a limited amount of power devolved to the regions. The north of England still has it's own singular identity it just can't make laws or set taxes that conflict with national policy.<br /><br />Maybe its an issue of size? After all the US is more of a continent rather than a country. I guess that people in LA feel as divorced from Washington as people in Manchester feel divorced from what's going on in Lisbon? CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-43652145297622686992016-01-31T08:28:03.637-06:002016-01-31T08:28:03.637-06:00From the earlier authors' perspective, the mer...From the earlier authors' perspective, the mere act of buying land from France and then compelling the people who lived there to behave or vamoose in the wake of westward settlement, was imperial. True, we never had anything like India, but at one point we did have Cuba, the Phillipines, and a smattering of smaller holdings like Puerto Rico, Guam, as well as outposts in places like Panama. <br /><br />As far as the national government goes, the US isn't France. It wasn't started as one nation-state with thirteen constituent departments. In the beginning, the national state was restricted to common defense, moderating interstate commerce, and a few other common-to-all things. The States did all of the work of governance. During the 20th century, though, the work of governance has been nearly monopolized by the national state, the bureaucracy of which is so big the only thing it does well is spend money crush things underfoot. <br /><br /><br />It's partially akin to the EU, perhaps: imagine if a hundred years in the future, the EU was considered a nation-state, with the UK and Germany regarded as subordinate elements of it. Would Spainards be 'weird' for protesting that the EU used to be just a common market, and that common citizens shouldn't have to interact with a government in Brussels every day? <br />Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-52571008588806995582016-01-31T03:39:14.768-06:002016-01-31T03:39:14.768-06:00It is funny reading about the American 'Empire...It is funny reading about the American 'Empire' from a perspective of physical and cultural difference. Plus, of course, we actually had an Empire than spanned at least 1/4 of the globe at one point. Certainly from my PoV America doesn't have an Empire and never really did. It might have have Imperial ambitions in the 19th century (didn't we all) but never made a serious attempt at it.<br /><br />Recently (post 19th century) you've been involved in plenty of wars (sometimes rather late but we - largely - forgive you for that [grin]) but that doesn't make you an Imperial power or even a wannabe. To be an Empire you need to rule other countries, not just invade them (or bomb them) and then leave with things largely unresolved. Sure you have bases across the world and plenty of influence - both culturally and through your military power - but that doesn't make you an Empire (or again a wannabe).<br /><br />Finally I do struggle with many American's attitude to their Government (of whatever colour). Fear, distrust etc... Sure, no one actually loves their government [OK some do but they're wacko's] but some of you actually don't want to have ANY government... on a NATIONAL level. That's.... weird [grin].CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-53593078013460965732016-01-30T23:16:02.149-06:002016-01-30T23:16:02.149-06:00@R.T. Enormous question. I'm not sure where to...@R.T. Enormous question. I'm not sure where to begin. I think subsidiary as a concept can have appeal across party lines, especially given the Greens' support for distributive power, and the eagerness of some advocacy groups like the ACLU to embrace bottom-up approaches when it suits them. (See their recent coordination with the Tenth Amendment Center to start tackling the surveilliance state from the state level.) As the central state continues to take on more challenges, it will become even more frustratingly incompetent, provoking people to look for other approaches. American culture is more feudal than republican now, but I think sheer necessity will provoke a return to finer-grained approaches. <br /><br />@ James: Taft features here! He's a figure I would have never heard of without the likes of Kauffman, redeeming him from the memory hole as it were. <br />Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-29038126534741192092016-01-30T21:44:19.546-06:002016-01-30T21:44:19.546-06:00Great review of an interesting book. Kauffman sou...Great review of an interesting book. Kauffman sounds like a modern day Robert A. Taft.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00561320676355168336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-74513478441824402772016-01-30T21:13:30.252-06:002016-01-30T21:13:30.252-06:00Great review and essay. Good stuff. Now how do we ...Great review and essay. Good stuff. Now how do we decentralize everything? I'm all for it but how?RTDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17113953356514605424noreply@blogger.com