Merry on Rome and America

By -
I don't think I have ever been cited this much in an essay.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell8:10 AM

    "The franchise is nearly universal; U.S. senators are chosen by popular vote and not by state legislatures…"

    Yes, Mr. Merry, that is a shame. /s

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:41 AM

      Yes, it was an idiotic act to take the power to elect Senators from the state legislatures!

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell7:49 PM

      Okay, I feel some sway towards agreeing with you. Why was it idiotic?

      Delete
    3. Samson Corwell7:54 PM

      Thank God you didn't agree with that first clause!

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell1:37 PM

      "Yes, it was an idiotic act to take the power to elect Senators from the state legislatures!"

      Why?

      Delete
    5. gcallah11:12 AM

      See Aristotle, Polybius, Montesquieu, Federalist Papers, etc., on why mixed-form government is superior to the pure forms such as democracy.

      Delete
    6. Samson Corwell5:52 PM

      I'm familiar with those arguments and I don't disagree with them. I fail to see how popular election of senators is closer to democracy than the state legislatures selecting them. I've seen that complaint many times and it's never made sense. Someone will say "majority-rule is bad". In response I will say "I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with the Seventeenth Amendment". It's utterly baffling, like complaints about the incorporation doctrine being "tyranny".

      Also, have you researched why the amendment was passed?

      Delete
    7. gcallah12:51 AM

      "I fail to see how popular election of senators is closer to democracy than the state legislatures selecting them."

      Well, that's odd, because the very argument FOR the change was "it's more democratic"!

      Delete
    8. gcallah3:12 AM

      Wikipedia: 'Most important was the populist argument; that there was a need to "Awaken, in the senators...a more acute sense of responsibility to the people", which it was felt they lacked; election through state legislatures was seen as an anachronism that was out of step with the wishes of the American people, and one that had led to the Senate becoming "a sort of aristocratic body – too far removed from the people, beyond their reach, and with no special interest in their welfare".'

      So the "most important" argument was that this reform was... more democratic!

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell4:22 AM

    Are you familiar with the massive amounts of corruption associated with pre-Seventeenth selection of Senators during the Gilded Age?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:16 AM

      Good thing there is no corruption of Senators any more!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more