Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

nps.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 87 posts

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#31

Post by jandrewrogers »

orochimaaru wrote: post #4
jmclnx wrote: post #3

It is too bad the current crop of pols are ignoring all these documents and setting up to steal assets from working and poor people.

I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefits. The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modi…

> I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude.

No, the rules for who could vote were determined by the individual States. Women and Africans could vote in New Jersey when this document was written, for example.

Later Constitutional amendments made the practices much more consistent across States. Something to keep in mind is that people voting for Presidents and Senators is a 20th century invention, voting rights were much more local back then.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#32

Post by mmooss »

jmyeet wrote: post #10

Spoiler: we could not in fact keep it. The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent…

> There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.

Of course. It depends on the people - either we oppose it and save us, or nobody will. That's the nature of democracy.

If you expect someone else to do it, that is, in a way, 'neofeudalism' - you are docile while some powerful person does things.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#33

Post by tomrod »

jmyeet wrote: post #10

Spoiler: we could not in fact keep it. The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent…

We can reclaim it.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#34

Post by bobthepanda »

vkou wrote: post #16
readthenotes1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation. Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough

The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests. Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change. Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.

I actually think the advantage is that it is significantly more realistic to fund a campaign for a 40,000 size seat than a couple hundred thousand, so it’s easier to have upstart campaigns from third parties.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#35

Post by tdb7893 »

themgt wrote: post #23
mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home: > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.…

> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. > Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversi…

I think not getting too enmeshed in their politics is still generally a good idea though I doubt that George Washington of all people would be unsympathetic towards people fighting for their own independence and liberty against a foreign power looking to strip them of those rights

Since context is important the speech also references the Neutrality proclamation of 1793 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Neutrality). I would say the stuff on European policy needs to be viewed through the lens of the wars there at the time (which I think are these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition)

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#36

Post by ianburrell »

bobthepanda wrote: post #7
relaxing wrote: post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

Right now it’s not even one for every 40,000. The size of the house is capped at 435 by an act of Congress. One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.

There has been observation of the number of representatives in many legislatures follow cube root of population.

For US population, the ideal number would be 693 representatives. That would be close to 500,000 people per district.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#37

Post by MarkMarine »

mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home: > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.…

Our system of government was predicated on different geographical interests pushing against each other, it was well understood that if “the rich” grouped together and put their class interest above the interests of the people around them, our system would fail. This language against factions, the paternal idea that rich elites would act against their own economic interests to serve some higher good… it had failed before it even started. We didn’t make it one term. While Washington was giving this speech there were already factions, that is why he was cautioning against them.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#38

Post by mullingitover »

tdb7893 wrote: post #35
themgt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. > Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversi…

I think not getting too enmeshed in their politics is still generally a good idea though I doubt that George Washington of all people would be unsympathetic towards people fighting for their own independence and liberty against a foreign power looking to strip them of those rights Since context is important the speech also references the Neutrality proclamation of 1793 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_…

When Washington was giving this speech, France, the key benefactor to the infant United States, was in the middle of a pretty nasty revolution and probably really wanted some repayment for their help. So the context here might also be relevant, the US was basically saying "Uhh...yeah, as a matter of principle we really shouldn't get involved with whatever crazy stuff Europe is up to!"

So I think the context matters a lot, and I agree if Washington were alive today (and somehow able to function with the grievous age-related illnesses he'd be suffering) he'd generally support the established transatlantic alliance.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#39

Post by eszed »

mmooss wrote: post #29
yibg wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately people as a mass, don’t tend to learn from history. Or at least forget the lessons from history fairly easily. Maybe we are doomed to repeat the same historical lessons.

The US has been a 'democratic republic' for almost 250 years, so many generations have learned. Such government has thrived in every culture and place, from East Asia to South Asia to almost all the Americas, many parts of Africa, Europe of course. Somehow, democracy works exceptionally well - far better than any alternative ever has - and is resilient. ... unless the people are somehow convinced that it is not, that…

Indeed. However, parliamentary democracies have a better track record of stability than federal structures (modeled after that of the US). Adjust for cultural and historical differences as you see fit, but the US has heretofore been an outlier.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#40

Post by briantakita »

mullingitover wrote: post #30
themgt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. > Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversi…

Sure was a simpler time. Now we have Russia pointing nuclear weapons at all our major population centers, and the engagements we have with a number of our allies against this nation are not being fulfilled, in bad faith.

Yet the USA was the only country to drop atomic weapons on civilian populations. If country X didn't have nukes & wanted to remain sovereign, the USA + global banking cartel would impose a regime change. It would be better if relations were better. But that would require acting in good faith...which hasn't been the case. Most people want peace & for the various powers to act in good faith...as most people don't benefit from war, sanctions, tariffs, excessive taxation, & the multitude of other statutes that benefit centralized power, bureaucracy, oligopoly, & middle-men imposing rent.

All of this requires well-defined & consistent application of ethics. However, the language of ethics has been tortured to justify coercion & self-serving interests. The simulacra of morality is merely cover for will to power impulses.

Nonetheless, I believe that most people want fairness & morality. However, most people also face a dilemma at times. Sacrifice on the hill of Principles or gain something such as a home, food, wealth, ownership, control over something. If people choose Principles, then they may lose opportunities. If they choose to accumulate wealth in conflict with Principles, then the society rots, one selfish action at a time. Unfortunately, the social rules are often set up to create this conflict. And the simulacra of morality is a tempting panacea to have the "best of both worlds". Or one can do the hard work to choose a better set of Principles to take care of their needs & create peace & prosperity for most if not all.

Post reply on HN