The federal government of the United States of America should be abolished.
Debate Rounds (5)
Hello and thank you for this debate. I will be arguing the position that the Federal Government of the United States should not be abolished. We can begin our actual arguments in Round 2.
Federal Government of the United States: "the three branches of U.S. government—legislative, judicial, and executive"
Firstly, the federal government is grossly oversized. The unchecked powers of D.C have been growing ever since the War for Southern Independence (1861-1865), probably even beforehand, but as of 2001 its unconstitutional powers have expanded at an unreasonable rate and to an unreasonable degree, mostly in the name of fighting "global terrorism". Here is but a small list of some executive orders that have been authorised as of late:
E.O 10990- Allows the government to take over ALL modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
E.O 10995- Allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
E.O 10997- Allows the government to take over ALL electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
E.O 10998- Allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including PERSONAL cars, trucks or vehicles of ANY kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
E.O 10999- Allows the government to take over ALL food resources and FARMS.
E.O 11000- Allows the government to mobilise civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
E.O 11001- Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
E.O 11002- Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
E.O 11003- Allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
E.O 11004- Allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, building new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
E.O 11005- Allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
E.O 11051- Specifies the responsibility of the office of Emergency Planning and gives authorisation to put ALL EXECUTIVE ORDERS INTO EFFECT in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
E.O 11310- Grants Authority to the Department of Justice to ENFORCE THE PLANS SET OUT IN EXECUTIVE ORDERS…
E.O 11921- Allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy resources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in the U.S financial institution in ANY UNDEFINED NATIONAL EMERGENCY. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for SIX MONTHS. Please note that E.O 11051 states that all these executive orders may be put into effect, not in times of war or crisis, but simply in times of "increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis". This means that if the nation hits depression status, which it very likely soon will, these orders may be enacted. There is no vote, and not even Congress has a say in it for half a year. Now to me, this sounds like unchecked power. Let us not forget that the feds are also responsible for every war since and including the War for Southern Independence, and in EVERY WAR, the people were not given a voice, a vote on the matter. If D.C decides to do something, it will do it, regardless of the desires of the citizens. I also ask that all those interested look into P.D.D51.
Second, the federal government is no longer capable of addressing the needs and desires of the various states. Either that, or it simply doesn't care to do so. But lets assume the first scenario. Now does the fed take an objective stance regarding states like New York, that are quite liberal, and Alabama, that are quite conservative? No, for the fed itself is a liberal institution. Both democrats and republicans are liberal in the same key points, such as race relations, religion, and especially with regards to the state known as "Israel". Is there ANY representation for racially aware people in the Congress or in the House? Is there ANY representation for people opposed to the fed's support for "Israel"? Is there any representation for those opposed to warmongering? I do not say that the fed should become conservative ( I say it should be abolished), but it would do MUCH better if it was a truly non-biased institution that only wanted to fairly represent the various states and uphold the principles upon which it was founded, namely the right to life, liberty, and property. Each state has different attributes and different needs. Each state also has different people with different desires. Should not each state be treated as a sovereign nation in that aspect, with only minimal ties to the new central government? But if we dissolve the federal government, would that not result in anarchy? No, it would result in the true restoration of state's rights, with each state practically becoming a sovereign nation, however, each state would continue to recognise that as a whole, we are still the United States of America, though without that massive, tyrannical, and hypocritical federal empire to control and decide things for us.
What has been the fed's main concern since 2001, but the war effort? When was the last time the fed did anything of benefit to the people? Do we the people elect the president, or does the Electoral College? Is this "president" even a legal citizen? And what does the phrase "for ourselves and our posterity" mean but the citizens of the nation at present and their direct descendants? Given that, how can the nation be legally run by a Kenyan? I know, I digress, and for that I apologise, but I believe this all goes to show that the federal government has become something the founders never intended it to be. It was the fed that took us off the gold standard and gave the economy to be run by the "Federal Reserve", which is in reality a private bank, no individual state decided these things. It was the fed that got us involved in the World War 1, and in World War 2, not any single state, and not by the vote of the people. It was the fed that has sacrificed so many citizens in its imperialistic goals. This "thing" does not care anymore about the needs or desires of the people or the states they live in.
Thirdly, I will simply sum up my main ideas. We the people decide almost nothing in this nation and have not truly done so since the mid 1850's. Sure, we had some good times with a few presidents, such as John F. Kennedy, but overall it has not been WE who ran the country, but it has been THEY of the federal government. I would like to put a special spotlight on the "Supreme Court", and unelected court that has no term limits, its so democratic! The fed put us into debt, started every majour war this country has fought, along with some other nefarious entities and admittedly at the behest of some particularly unscrupulous and tribalistic people, and is responsible for every majour change in laws regarding morality in the past hundred years. They have become a new royalty, a pompous upper-class of corporatist and quasi-Marxist fiends who leech off the resources and industry of the states to perpetuate their poisonous influence in the world. Let us end this beast before it devours us all! (apologies for the pre-Webster grammar)
I would also like to thank my opponent for this debate, and I would also like to take a moment to clarify my stance. I am not arguing that our current Government is efficient or undersized, I am simply arguing that our current Government should not be abolished and refuting claims that our Government should be abolished. In fact, I believe the Constitution allows for a balanced Government, and it is the politicians who have expanded beyond this document that are the real evil.
First, the Government IS the problem, but it is not the structure of the Government that is the problem. It is the politicians. Executive Orders can, and have been, overturned by the Supreme Court. This can all be undone by a respectable elected President. In fact, the entire mess we have gotten ourselves into can quite possibly be overturned if we elect the right people into Office. The best solution is not to completely start over; in fact, that is the worst solution. The best solution is to fix what is broken, to limit Government size, and to begin abiding by the laws of the Constitution. Our Constitution is the oldest one of its kind still in use; it is the work of a group of political geniuses. Every Executive Order you listed that reaches outside the boundaries of the Constitution may have been issued by a President, but that does not mean that the Constitution allows them to. It is not the structure of the Government, as a three-branched constitutional republic obviously works, it is the people in the Government, the politicians who have screwed us over by expanding their power.
The federal Government's purpose is not to provide for the states. The purpose of the Government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." In fact, in your first argument, you state that the federal Government is "grossly oversized" but then you go on to claim that one of the Government's purposes is "addressing the needs and desires of the various states"? If you do not want your Government to be oversized, then do not let it attempt to provide for the states' needs and desires. The Government's prupose is not to provide for every little want and need of the states, the Government's purposes are SPECIFICALLY outlined in the Preamble of the Constitution.
Again, the politicians may be greedy and powerhungry -- in fact, they are -- but it is they who have ruined our Government. The outline of the Branches' powers, the structure of the Government, is not what is at fault, and it should not be abolished. What should be abolished, however, are the politicians -- the ones actually to blame for the mess you summed up in most of your argument.
But how should we change? I am arguing that the 'system' we want to change is too far gone to restore what can be, and to change what realistically cannot be, and so it would be better for us to finally put to rest this system altogether and begin anew. Let us start a new chapter in the history of America, with new goals, a new structure, and new ideals. We cannot keep clinging on to the diseased body or else it will infect us, as it already is. Now I know there are many patriots out there who are so loyal to their country that the idea of ending it seems evil, and I admire that level of patriotism, but I stress that they must see first with the eye of reason, then second with the eye of progress and opportunity, and lastly with the eye of faith/patriotism. Imagine, if you will, the freedom we may enjoy when that beastly entity is dead, the federal government. Nation after nation will pop up across the land, each with different plans, goals, structures, and philosophies. I say that we deserve the freedom to start again this great American experiment. Let this land be home to a hundred countries, and let each of those countries try a different way of life and government, and then let the most successful democratically seize power, if that is what the people desire.
But we are fooling ourselves with the fantasy that the structure of the olde U.S fed is sufficient, or the best. My opponent outlined the goals of the government, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I ask this, have any of those goals been accomplished? Indeed they have, but under the olde system, when it was dealing with the olde ways of an olde generation. This is a new time and a different realm, and the olde system can no longer cope with the changes that have taken place. I want the end of the olde system and the foundation of a new one. I want there to be NO District of Colombia, NO single Congress building, NO president of the entire nation, NO central bank, NO central government of any kind that would rule the entire nation. Instead, I want a new system, one that holds congressional meetings in different halls across the nation, cycling through each state/nation so that all may be heard. I want there to be NO supreme court, but instead only the state and local courts, with TERM LIMITS.
I want my state to have the freedom to totally manage and rule itself without ANY other influence, but I can rant about possible new systems at another time, here I only need to justify the need to dissolve that system which exercises such control over us. I am an anti-federalist, and as such, I do not hold that the Constitution of 1787 is infallible or some God-given document. I believe that the creation of the federal government by the constitution was possibly our first mistake. I believe that the founders made many fundamental mistakes in their time, such as deciding NOT to make German the official language and promoting too much the idea of the separation of Church and state, which has resulted in so many people believing that such words are anywhere in the Constitution or Declaration. They should have specifically said that it was the corrupt Anglican Church they wanted separation from...
Right, so, in my opinion we ought to take action much like founders did, of course I would prefer the peaceful dissolution of the fed by democratic means, not by bloodshed or coup, as it was with France. But I am convinced that it is not possible to recover power within the fed by election, because they control even the elections now. I say this, if the candidate is a democrat or a republican, he is already bought out, controlled opposition. And seeing how unlikely it is that anyone free of those parties will be elected, we are left with only one option, do away with the fed, and do away with the democratic and republican parties, so that they may not pester the free states with their corruption.
To sum it up again, I believe that the system has become too corrupt to recover, and that even if we could do this, it would still be the same system, the same structure, and is simply not capable of handling what needs to be handled, so I am at present convinced that the only workable alternative is to do away with the fed altogether and let the states, and the citizens in them, be free, free to choose who their masters are, or free to choose to have no masters at all but themselves. I want the freedom for the Mormons to have a Mormon country, the Catholics to have a Catholic country, the National Socialists to have a National Socialist country, the monarchists to have their monarchy, and even the atheists and anarchist to have their, uh, lack of a country, but all these states and nations would still be bound under Anglo-Saxon common law, would recognise themselves as part of America, and would participate in the new national government, which would be roughly modeled after the United Nations and the Olympics (in that congress would convene in different states)
I also thank my opponent for a quick response.
The structure that the Founders created was built with the very recent memory of the American War for Independence. They wrote the Constitution just a few years after a war against an exploitative monarchy (of course also after the failed Articles of Confederation, factoring in solutions to problems that not only existed in European monarchies but also this first Government), so they created a Government around the knowledge that politicians or other people in power will try to expand that power. The fact that they factored in political greed into the federal Government explains why our Government is a very well-designed attempt at the balance of power. Of course the Government now is not the same as the one they created -- and they actually knew that it would need to change, so they created a process for amending it: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution," of course, with the necessary balance of power in place to amend it. Simply because the society was different -- different in what it accepted, different in how it acted -- does not mean they were parochial in their ideals; in fact, New England was already moving towards abolition around this time.
To argue that a three-branched structure does not work simply because the changing of an era is what is truly ludicrous. Human greed will continue until the end of time; the Founders knew this and solved this, arguably through political ingenuity, through the three-branched balance of power. This is why the Constitution, or the ideas of our Constitution, has been so influencial in global politics. My opponent argues that our system is "too far gone to restore what can be, and to change what realistically cannot be, and so it would be better for us to finally put to rest this system altogether and begin anew." This is false. Anything that has been expanded outside the Constitution can be shrunk in the same way if we elect the correct people.
The Confederacy my opponent is advocating has already been tried in the Articles of Confederation, and it worked horribly. Although I too agree that the federal Government has expanded outside Constitutional boundaries, there is a need for a central, federal Government to exercise some power, though obviously most would rest in the states. As has been shown by two to three hundred years of history, the states do not agree on everything, and will not continue to do so. We would effectively lose our title of "United" without a body to unite us under.
I also do not hold that the Constitution is infallible or divine. I do, however, see its advantages as well as its disadvantages, and the advantages heavily outweigh the disadvantages (which can be seen in our relatively prosperous history), partly because the Founders knew that politicians are inherently greedy and power hungry. As a side note, the legend that German nearly became the official language of America is false, as there was no such bill. The 'separation between church and state' was effectively followed in the First Amendment which states that Congress shall not establish an official religion or prohibit its exercise.
Your view of the world, my friend, is quite easy to imagine. Having several states composed under the unision of religion or politics or whatever is almost set up for failure. While a diverse nation nearly forces people to accept each other, having separate Jewish and Muslim nations attempt to cooperate under a 'United Nations'-type body is apt for immediate collapse. What happens to 'National Socialists' who are also 'Catholics', or 'anarchists' who are also 'pagans'? This categorization without consistency simply will not work, and it doesn't take much to see why.
I await your response, and good luck!
The only viable solution to me is to destroy it and start again with a new government. I am not advocating here that we ought to found this or that new system, only that we ought to dissolve the olde one. Elections no longer work and cannot and WILL NOT save us. I will admit something here that I tell few people, I hate 'democracy', since the fall of the last European stronghold I hate it, because it lets people vote who have no right to, and who only use their vote for evil or stupid purposes, or more disgracefully, neglect to even participate when they have been given the generous freedom to do so. Let me be clear, as a traditional Catholic, I am bound to follow my Church above all other things, and my Church has declared that the separation of Church and State is a great and terrible evil, because by that separation the government becomes, out of necessity, atheistic, taking a direct stance against the Church's mission, but alas, Ive managed to digress into my religious opinions once more.
Democracy should now be called demoncrazy, because a lot of crazed demons make up the bloc. I tell you and everyone else that reads this, I, we must dissolve this government before it devours us. It was flawed from the start, and with each year its flaws magnify. My opponent admits that the system I argue against FORCES diverse people to ACCEPT one another. This is another great and terrible evil. I WILL NOT ASSIMILATE into this pseudo-liberal Marxistic utopia of lies, and neither should anyone else have to! To inter-breed, to mix cultures, to assimilate, is to commit genocide and suicide. America is not made strong by its 'diversity', no, it is made weak by its rampant miscegenation! Diversity is destroyed by lack of purity, for when two ingredients are combined, only one product is produced, that, scientifically, is less ordered than it was previously. The federal government must be ended because it is the beast that is promoting this totalitarian democracy on us all.
And what of these Catholic National Socialists, and anarchist pagans? I didnt say that the states of the future must be only one thing, but that is irrelevant from my point. I am not yet ready to propose my final solution to the federal question (fun with wordplay!) anyway. We must face the facts here, most people hate the federal government already and see it as just as hypocritical and dictatorial as I do, and they are becoming desperate for a change, and what bigger change is there than to kill the serpent at its head?
They have no right, I say, no right to impose their foolish world-views upon us! And we cannot, I say, cannot keep fooling ourselves into thinking we can restore the system without some blood spilt in revolution! And since I do not want another bloody revolution of separation, I choose the bloodless counter-revolution of dissolution. I am not so much in favour of secession, because the feds made it very clear to us in 1865 that they will not tolerate legal separation, so, In my opinion, they give us no choice but to take them out of the equation completely. I am not here to argue that it can be done, or what to do afterwards, but simply to state that it SHOULD be done. And since we are Americans after all, we have the 'right' to govern ourselves in any way we see fit, that was the idea behind this whole thing to begin with, right? My opponent says we must have at least a reasonably strong federal government in this nation; okay, but must it be the same structure or system? Can we not dissolve the olde one and create a new one? Why cannot America have a Parliament and a Prime Minister, for instance? Why cannot we have royalty, if we want it? Why cannot we have a chancellor or a series of lords and lady's, if that is what we as a people desire? We cannot have these things because that beast in D.C wont allow it! It would take too long for us to even try to restore the rightful order through voting, and all the while millions more illegals will make their way in and somehow obtain voting status, and they will be bought out by the sleeziest politician to swing the vote every time! Dont you see, NO minority party can take back all of it, or even get a president elected!
The vices that plague mankind will indeed continue until kingdom come, but that does not mean that we must settle for what we have. We can do better than the legislative, executive, and judicial, MUCH better, but we need that opportunity first. Its proven by now I think that the separation of powers isnt working, meaning to me at least that the problem lies within the structure itself. I wonder just how many restrictions we will have to place in order to keep corruption out? Perhaps we should have citizens' espionage on all politicians? And no matter how many amendments we come up with, so long as we follow that same constitution and the humanistic ideals of so many of the founders, we will not be able to get exactly what it is we want. (At this point I am speaking more about what I want, but I recognise that others have the right, to a certain degree, to pursue what they want as well.) On a side note, one thing I like about the Koran is that it states Allah made the peoples of the world to be separate from one another, and I think this is why the powers that be hate them so furiously, because they, like I, refuse to assimilate, and are actually doing a pretty good job of taking 'us' over instead. Note that one of the world's most thriving people/cultures is made up of zealots, fundamentalists, traditionalists, and people who frankly dont give a crap about your 'rights to this and that'. I think that shows which alignment is better at 'Winning!' to quote Charlie Sheen ( i.e liberal/conservative, or modernism/traditionalism) Now please forgive me if my argument here is scattered and possibly unintelligible, I started writing it at 3am and finished at 5am. I am an incurable procrastinator and sometimes a lunatic, but thats what makes me unique... apologies for the Muslim rant, dont know how I got into that.
And now the problem is democracy? You mentioned the word 'democracy' three times in your last argument but in no argument before then. I must ask you, my opponent, to please stick with a solid argument. I am now completely thrown off by your argument, because all this time I thought you were advocating an abolishment of the federal Government due to the principles of popular sovereignty, but now you say that democracy is wrong 'because it lets people vote who have no right to'; equal voting is a core principle in an egalitarian democracy. None of this even supports your argument for the abolition of the federal Government, at this point you are just simply ranting about democracy.
However, in reading that rant I did pick up a "rebuttal" to my claim earlier about how we can fix the federal Government's extreme expansion. We can repair the Government BECAUSE of democracy, because we have the ability to elect who we feel will do the best job in office; this power, along with the balance of Government laid out in our Constitution, can fix the Government. Instead of electing greedy politicians who just want to expand power, elect someone (in the following scenario, a President) who will abide by the Constitution and veto any laws which do not follow the document.
As a Catholic, I too am bound to God above state. But you must remember that the Catholic Church does not condemn separation of church and state anymore. In fact, in Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council writes: "the right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society
is governed and thus is to become a civil right." The Catholic Church promotes the state's responsibility to protect religious freedom and to not condemn any religion. This is completely irrelevant to the argument, I just wanted to correct you on your stance here.
You misunderstand what I mean by diversity. I do not mean to insult you but your rants are very heard to read because of its error. I do not believe in a 'pseudo-liberal Marxist utopia of lies', either, because I am against federal expansion. But you obviously do not understand -- after all you say "it was flawed from the start," which I now see ties into your disliking of democracy ('demoncrazy'). There is no question that of course democracy is flawed; in fact, it is extremely flawed, but social contract theory is a theory that took thouands of years since the birth of civilization to emerge, and its creation is probably one of the greatest advances in political thinking since the Magna Carta. Since I barely understand your problem with diversity -- as you call it both 'genocide' and 'suicide' -- I will not attempt to rebut any of this. This is not a concession, just an ignoring of your argument due to lack of understanding.
As for "I didnt say that the states of the future must be only one thing," which of course these 'states of the future' are only your vision, you pretty much did say there were to be one thing, because you "want the freedom for the Mormons to have a Mormon country, the Catholics to have a Catholic country, the National Socialists to have a National Socialist country, the monarchists to have their monarchy." That, along with your rant of diversity, pretty much sums up your argument that a state should be composed of one group only.
Your analogy of killing the serpent (the federal Government) at its head is the false analogy fallacy -- the serpent is the politicians who are in power, the serpent is the greedy and power-hungry leaders that wish to expand the Government's reach. The Constitution, in this scenario, is a well-structured cage that the serpent has broken out of. Yes, we must not only kill the serpent, but in the rebuilt cage not only a beast that understands its place within the cage but also a beast that does not attempt to break out -- electing the correct politicians.
I was about to begin another rebuttal on your next paragraph but then I noticed something peculiar. You say, "why cannot America have a Parliament and a Prime Minister, for instance? Why cannot we have royalty, if we want it? Why cannot we have a chancellor or a series of lords and lady's, if that is what we as a people desire?" I am now in complete and total incomprehension of your stance. You now are FOR democracy. First, I can nearly guarantee you that most Americans see democracy as the best form of Government (anyone that reads this and is against democracy, please note that I am not saying everyone is for democracy, but that most Americans enjoy the rights they have to control the Government through elections), so the creation of a monarchy or anything is improbable. Second, this argument stems from the principle of 'popular sovereignty' (which I mentioned earlier) which was developed by the same people who developed social contract theory and thus democracy.
You are all over the place in your beliefs, I suggest you find an actual solid argument instead of ranting about everything you don't like about the federal Government.
DP8184 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: PRO's arguments were rhetoric without any sources, and his stances shifting and often non-topical. Reliable source goes to CON due to fallacious statements by PRO regarding constitution, founding fathers, etc. On an aside, I think PRO may want to consider moving out of the country; PRO may find more kinsmen in countries such as turkey, china, north korea, mayhaps Vatican city, so on. Pro is pretty much against all the principles America was founded on.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.