Articles of Confederation


Recommended Posts

Hey all,

I have to write a paper on why the Articles of Confederation failed and I am little stuck on why it actually did. What did the Articles of Confederation have that led to its failure because everything I can find says it has everything I generally agree with. Such as voluntary taxation and limited government. If it had these, then why did fail? Why did this taxation system not work?

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

I have to write a paper on why the Articles of Confederation failed and I am little stuck on why it actually did. What did the Articles of Confederation have that led to its failure because everything I can find says it has everything I generally agree with. Such as voluntary taxation and limited government. If it had these, then why did fail? Why did this taxation system not work?

Thanks,

David C.

Nobody wants to pay their "fair" share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I studied this topic, but as I recall the Articles of Confederation relied heavily on the idea that each state was a sovereign entity which made it difficult to build unity of either thought or action. At the time, unity was paramount to the survival of the shiny new nation, or else each state would be vulnerable to attacks of all sorts (economic, political, military).

Whether or not the Articles can properly be called a failure, could be disputed. That might more aptly be called a learning experience. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

I have to write a paper on why the Articles of Confederation failed and I am little stuck on why it actually did. What did the Articles of Confederation have that led to its failure because everything I can find says it has everything I generally agree with. Such as voluntary taxation and limited government. If it had these, then why did fail? Why did this taxation system not work?

Thanks,

David C.

Nobody wants to pay their "fair" share.

So would you be in favor of forced taxation, which is basically what we have now, just a progressive version of it.

Thanks for the answer. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

I have to write a paper on why the Articles of Confederation failed and I am little stuck on why it actually did. What did the Articles of Confederation have that led to its failure because everything I can find says it has everything I generally agree with. Such as voluntary taxation and limited government. If it had these, then why did fail? Why did this taxation system not work?

Thanks,

David C.

Nobody wants to pay their "fair" share.

So would you be in favor of forced taxation, which is basically what we have now, just a progressive version of it.

Thanks for the answer. :smile:

It is not the answer I would like to give, but the fact of the matter is many people would like to be free riders, if they can get away with it. It is a perversity of human nature we have to live with.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David C.,

as I understand it there were a number of issues or concerns which led the Founders to realize that there was a need for there

to be a government over the newly independent sovereign states which were formerly British colonies. There are hints in Article 1

Section 10 where certain things were forbidden to the states. Why were they forbidden? Evidently at least some of these things

had been done after the states became independent.

I am not knowledgeable enough about the details to give explicit examples. In general we know that some states "impaired contracts"

meaning that clauses in contracts were crossed out. Men who had borrowed money, in the form of coins, had included a written condition

that the loan be paid back in coin. Some debtors evidently approached their legislators to have such conditions crossed out and instead

a clause included enabling them to "repay" in paper currency.

Such impairment of contracts became explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.

The king of England had issued bills of attainder by which a man could be imprisoned and all his property taken and disposed of. Such Bills of attainder were also forbidden in the Constitution although I am unaware that any such bills of attainder were issued under the Articles

of Confederation.

The new constitution also forbid imposition of taxes on goods traded among the states under the Commerce Clause which sought to make trade

among the states "regular." This has been misconstrued to empower the Feds to regulate trade quite contrary to the original intent.

All that I can think of at the moment.

gg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was more unity required? The colonies had just fought and won a war against the greatest army on earth--and did so without a President, a Supreme Court, or national taxation and regulation of commerce. Many Americans feared a central government would behave exactly like the British Crown.

And they were correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was more unity required? The colonies had just fought and won a war against the greatest army on earth--and did so without a President, a Supreme Court, or national taxation and regulation of commerce. Many Americans feared a central government would behave exactly like the British Crown.

And they were correct.

The Colonies won their war of Independence with the help of France. Without that they would not have won.

Even so, the Brits beat the shit out of the American states in the War of 1812. They even burned the White House.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was more unity required? The colonies had just fought and won a war against the greatest army on earth--and did so without a President, a Supreme Court, or national taxation and regulation of commerce. Many Americans feared a central government would behave exactly like the British Crown.

And they were correct.

Without a strong government that could raise a powerful army (by taxation and draft) I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read that the Articles allowed states to establish tariffs and to limit entry at their borders. The Constitution expressly ruled out tariffs. They also expressly made mail delivery a government monopoly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert but I've never been convinced that the articles of Confederation failed. They succeeded in defeating the British, then after about six years the Founding Fathers decided to draft the constitution. The period between might not have been ideal, but I don't think it was horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why was more unity required? The colonies had just fought and won a war against the greatest army on earth--and did so without a President, a Supreme Court, or national taxation and regulation of commerce. Many Americans feared a central government would behave exactly like the British Crown.

And they were correct.

The Colonies won their war of Independence with the help of France. Without that they would not have won.

Even so, the Brits beat the shit out of the American states in the War of 1812. They even burned the White House.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And the U.S. won other wars with the help of France, Great Britain, Canada, etc. But a country does not require a central government to win allies. In fact, one could argue that the colonies were in fact a group of allies, not too different from the coalition that defeated Napoleon.

Since the War of 1812 was fought after the Articles of Confederation had already been discarded, we can hardly conclude from that event that only a central government can repel an invasion.

Why was more unity required? The colonies had just fought and won a war against the greatest army on earth--and did so without a President, a Supreme Court, or national taxation and regulation of commerce. Many Americans feared a central government would behave exactly like the British Crown.

And they were correct.

Without a strong government that could raise a powerful army (by taxation and draft) I would have ended up as a cake of soap on some Nazi's bathtub.

Ba'al Chatzaf

By the same non-logic we could argue that since the U.S. had an income tax and a welfare state when it defeated Hitler, we need an income tax and welfare state to defend against the next Hitler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the same non-logic we could argue that since the U.S. had an income tax and a welfare state when it defeated Hitler, we need an income tax and welfare state to defend against the next Hitler.

Without taxation and coercion we could not maintain a military capable of dealing with our current enemies. I am not happy this conclusion but I believe it to be correct. 50 discoordinated States could not fund and manage a military armed force capable of defending the country. We need a fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear missile and attack submarines. We need sufficient nukes and missiles to launch them. We need an air force. Without taxation how could we possible produce such a force de frappe? Individual capitalists could not possible create such as force.

In a peaceful world with no bully dictatorships wield nuclear might and commanding vast armies (like China, instance) we could very well do with a small government imposing minimal taxation, just to maintain proper and necessary public facilities. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. We have to deal with the world that is, not the world that we would like to live in.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the alleged necessity of taxation: even Objectivists, a group no one would accuse of being weak on national defense, admit that once welfare state functions are eliminated, a government limited to police, armed forces, and law courts would require expenditures totaling only a fraction of the current federal budget. Yaron Brook: "In a laissez-faire society, government would be a lot smaller."

More importantly, in order to be convinced of the idea of taxation, I would have to be shown how a politician on the basis of winning a state or national popularity contest becomes automatically better qualified than I to know how to spend the money I earned. That's the hurdle no pro-taxer has been able to overleap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the alleged necessity of taxation: even Objectivists, a group no one would accuse of being weak on national defense, admit that once welfare state functions are eliminated, a government limited to police, armed forces, and law courts would require expenditures totaling only a fraction of the current federal budget. Yaron Brook: "In a laissez-faire society, government would be a lot smaller."

More importantly, in order to be convinced of the idea of taxation, I would have to be shown how a politician on the basis of winning a state or national popularity contest becomes automatically better qualified than I to know how to spend the money I earned. That's the hurdle no pro-taxer has been able to overleap.

Tell us a good way to eliminate the danger of armed attack on our nation. Once we do that, we can crank back and let the sheriff of Mayberry keep the domestic peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the alleged necessity of taxation: even Objectivists, a group no one would accuse of being weak on national defense, admit that once welfare state functions are eliminated, a government limited to police, armed forces, and law courts would require expenditures totaling only a fraction of the current federal budget. Yaron Brook: "In a laissez-faire society, government would be a lot smaller."

More importantly, in order to be convinced of the idea of taxation, I would have to be shown how a politician on the basis of winning a state or national popularity contest becomes automatically better qualified than I to know how to spend the money I earned. That's the hurdle no pro-taxer has been able to overleap.

Not the idea--the fact--and you've already been convinced of that. The idea--and you? Impossible!

--Brant

send me your money everybody--this is completely voluntary--and I'll spend it just as well as you (annual report)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the states would have conglomerated into larger entities without the new Constitution anyway. Slavery would likely have been left a southern problem and no "Civil War." Today's world would be different. Better? Worse? (More interesting? I think it would be but none of us would be here to appreciate it. Us would be others.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the alleged necessity of taxation: even Objectivists, a group no one would accuse of being weak on national defense, admit that once welfare state functions are eliminated, a government limited to police, armed forces, and law courts would require expenditures totaling only a fraction of the current federal budget. Yaron Brook: "In a laissez-faire society, government would be a lot smaller."

More importantly, in order to be convinced of the idea of taxation, I would have to be shown how a politician on the basis of winning a state or national popularity contest becomes automatically better qualified than I to know how to spend the money I earned. That's the hurdle no pro-taxer has been able to overleap.

Tell us a good way to eliminate the danger of armed attack on our nation. Once we do that, we can crank back and let the sheriff of Mayberry keep the domestic peace.

One way is to focus on the nation's defense rather than empire, which is what U.S. foreign policy consists of today. As Rand wrote in her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society," people will voluntarily pay for defense but not "against the danger of aggression by Cambodia."

Furthermore, since Rand specifically mentioned "the police, the armed forces, the law courts" as necessary functions, it is unlikely that that she had sheriffs in mind to repel an armed attack on our nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the alleged necessity of taxation: even Objectivists, a group no one would accuse of being weak on national defense, admit that once welfare state functions are eliminated, a government limited to police, armed forces, and law courts would require expenditures totaling only a fraction of the current federal budget. Yaron Brook: "In a laissez-faire society, government would be a lot smaller."

More importantly, in order to be convinced of the idea of taxation, I would have to be shown how a politician on the basis of winning a state or national popularity contest becomes automatically better qualified than I to know how to spend the money I earned. That's the hurdle no pro-taxer has been able to overleap.

Tell us a good way to eliminate the danger of armed attack on our nation. Once we do that, we can crank back and let the sheriff of Mayberry keep the domestic peace.

One way is to focus on the nation's defense rather than empire, which is what U.S. foreign policy consists of today. As Rand wrote in her essay "Government Financing in a Free Society," people will voluntarily pay for defense but not "against the danger of aggression by Cambodia."

Furthermore, since Rand specifically mentioned "the police, the armed forces, the law courts" as necessary functions, it is unlikely that that she had sheriffs in mind to repel an armed attack on our nation.

It may be feasible to withdraw from NATO, but we would still need forward bases. If we withdrew to our continental boundaries we could not successfully prevent air and missile attacks. And we would still need as fleet of aircraft carriers and submarines (perhaps reduced somewhat). Even this reduced defense would be beyond the means of a non-centralized and non-taxing government and certainly be beyond the means of a quasi-private defense force.

It is very important to keep nuclear weapons from being exploded in the continental U.S. If that were to happen large parts of our continental territory would become unlivable because of residual radioactivity. In Ayn Rands day a war could happen then end. Post nuclear and war could happen and the radioactivity would be a long, long time ending. In fact it would never end completely in terms of the survival time of our species. Bottom line, we need forward defense and we would have to fight in a proactive manner, that is detect danger and strike first. Like Israel. It says in the Talmud, If he is coming to kill you, rise up early and slay him first. That is very good advice from The Survivors Manual, the Talmud.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no one dares enter Himoshima to this day. Nagasaki too is a ghost city.

Bob, please learn a little about what you digress on--radiation--before you try to teach us. You can come out of your shelter 14 days after your city is blown up--that is, it won't be radiation you'll need worry about.

The more intense the radiation the shorter its half life. The novel (movie) On the Beach was based on scientific crap. The natural background radiation we are all bathed in is supportive of life. It's so supportive the higher you live the more you're exposed to, the less likely, statistically, you will get cancer.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, no one dares enter Himoshima to this day. Nagasaki too is a ghost city.

Bob, please learn a little about what you digress on--radiation--before you try to teach us. You can come out of your shelter 14 days after your city is blown up--that is, it won't be radiation you'll need worry about.

The more intense the radiation the shorter its half life. The novel (movie) On the Beach was based on scientific crap. The natural background radiation we are all bathed in is supportive of life. It's so supportive the higher you live the more you're exposed to, the less likely, statistically, you will get cancer.

--Brant

Only a tiny tiny bomb exploded in those places. A thermonuclear bomb (H-bomb) would create a much large quantity of long lived radioactive residue. On the scale of current nukes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were small. For about 20 years after the A-bomb attacks people were afflicted with cancers caused by radiation.

I might point out that so called "dirty" plutonium bombs could befoul a location for over a hundred years. If the U.S. is nuked it will most likely be with "dirty" non critical bombs. Very bad news if they are blown up in a city. Not only would a large number of people be killed or badly sickened out right but the area would be "hot". Sort of like the city of Propriat where the nuclear reactor blew its top in the Ukraine. To this day 29 years later the city is still unsafe for long term occupation. That is a generation.

The Chernobyl disaster released much more radioactive material than either of the nukes used on the Japanese cities and there wasn't a mushroom cloud over Chernobyl.

The problem with nukes that does not occur with chemical weapons is the long term residual effects.

And I have not even begun to discuss what would happen if chemical and biological weapons were deployed against us. They are easier to sneak in than nuclear weapons. In fact they can even be put together within the country using materials that are legally available within the country. So if you think we can defend ourselves by simply pulling back to our borders, think again. Our coastlines are long, the Canadian border is over 3000 miles wide and the Mexican border is as sturdy as toilet paper.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And I have need even begun to discuss what would happen to the U.S. if biological weapons were used against this nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you need to give us some references for more radiation does not mean longer half life. "Dirty" plutonium bombs is interesting, however.

--Brant

Plutonium has a half life of a little over 24,000 years. A dirty plutonium bomb could render some prime real estate unlivable. Uranium 238 has a half life of about 4.5 billion years. The half life of U-235 is around 700 million years. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

In addition to radioactivity plutonium just a a chemical is extremely poisonous. Even if it didn't produce hard radiation it would be a killer.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

Dirty plutonium bombs would really make life unpleasant, perhaps even more unpleasant that the kind that produce mushroom clouds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you need to give us some references for more radiation does not mean longer half life. "Dirty" plutonium bombs is interesting, however.

--Brant

Plutonium has a half life of a little over 24,000 years. A dirty plutonium bomb could render some prime real estate unlivable. Uranium has a half life of about 4.5 billion years. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

In addition to radioactivity plutonium just a a chemical is extremely poisonous. Even if it didn't produce hard radiation it would be a killer.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

Dirty plutonium bombs would really make life unpleasant, perhaps even more unpleasant that the kind that produce mushroom clouds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wikipedia does not support your thesis nor conclusion and in a least one paragraph flatly contradicts it. Yes, plutonium can be very bad and dangerous. So can water, as in the Johstown flood. It's not just that the dose makes the poison--you can kill yourself just by drinking water--but the dose delivered, how and where. There is always a tipping point to a heath disaster with radiation, but no radiation at all means a health disaster going the other direction. We all live in a sea of life supporting background radiation. The higher up you live the more of it and the more benefit from it. This includes flight crews at 30,000 feet who live in Denver.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you need to give us some references for more radiation does not mean longer half life. "Dirty" plutonium bombs is interesting, however.

--Brant

Plutonium has a half life of a little over 24,000 years. A dirty plutonium bomb could render some prime real estate unlivable. Uranium has a half life of about 4.5 billion years. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

In addition to radioactivity plutonium just a a chemical is extremely poisonous. Even if it didn't produce hard radiation it would be a killer.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity

Dirty plutonium bombs would really make life unpleasant, perhaps even more unpleasant that the kind that produce mushroom clouds.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wikipedia does not support your thesis nor conclusion and in a least one paragraph flatly contradicts it. Yes, plutonium can be very bad and dangerous. So can water, as in the Johstown flood. It's not just that the dose makes the poison--you can kill yourself just by drinking water--but the dose delivered, how and where. There is always a tipping point to a heath disaster with radiation, but no radiation at all means a health disaster going the other direction. We all live in a sea of life supporting background radiation. The higher up you live the more of it and the more benefit from it. This includes flight crews at 30,000 feet who live in Denver.

--Brant

You are referring to cosmic radiation which is much lower intensity that the gamma rays given off by plutonium. Ionizing radiation is deadly. And plutonium is very poisonous chemically. Think of load poisoning on steroids.

If you want to see what a dirty explosion can do, see what happened to Pripryat in the Ukraine a city near Chernobyl. It is uninhabitable. People permitted in that area have to wear film badges and limit their stay. As a city Pripryat is dead

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pripyat

See some of the charms of plutonium at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Precautions

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now