Political Theory

Re: Articles of Confederation

Parsidius — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:44:36 GMT

Here is a good article on the... well, articles. Basically, the problems were caused by out-of-control government spending and power, whether in the states or from the Continental Congress. But with the life being choked out of them by their statist policies the states would have had to give them up eventually. However, a national government would protect their expropriation. This goes perfectly with Hoppe's analysis that there is a tendency for states to centralize over time, as, when they are small, people can leave, but when they are large it is harder to do so.

So much for the Founding Fathers being such a great bunch of guys, huh?

Re: Articles of Confederation

DBratton — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:25:08 GMT

Mostly true. But though the treaty of Paris listed each state it was negotiated and signed by the representative of the central government. And some of the states didn't feel compelled to honor it's provisions. The treaty required that there be no retalliation against Tories, but about 100,000 were expelled.

I think the current constitution was a get rich quick scheme hatched by Hamilton, Jay, Knox, and a few others. They had bought up the old paper money that had been circulated by the AOC government during the war for a fraction of it's face value and wanted it honored at face value.

I think the tax that sparked Shay's rebellion also had something to do with attempts to get rich off of these old debts. Skip down to the section of Shay's rebellion in the article <a href="http://www.mises.org/story/1296">Rethinking the Article of Confederation</a>.

Re: Articles of Confederation

Sid Cundiff — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 22:06:08 GMT

The best I know: there was only one bad thing about the Articles: They didn't guarantee a free trade zone.

The States United were 13 sovereign individual states. The Peace of Paris was signed with each of these States. The federal authority, both under the Articles, then under the Constitution of 1787 was to be the hired agent of the states to defend them and to represent them in foreign affairs. And whom the States hire, they can fire. Of the States, by the States, for the States. It was clearly understood that an individual State, if it wished, could leave the States United. The Constitution of 1787 gave the federal authority only 18 things to do. The 10th Amendment said that's all it had to do. Hamilton and Clay tried, and Dishonest Abe succeeded, in making this Constitution Potemkin. But you may know this already.

Re: Articles of Confederation

jdavidb — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:42:51 GMT

how would problems such as different currencies and dozens of different tariffs and whatnot be avoided in a confederacy

The free market is completely able to handle competing currencies. Not only is government intervention not necessary to "avoid" this "problem," it actually causes damage.

Completely read Murray Rothbard's book What Has Government Done to Our Money? for the full answer. You can find it online for reading at http://www.mises.org/money.asp

When every institution and individual is able to issue currencies, the market will select only trustworthy currencies. When the government has a monopoly on currency issue, it is then able to issue an untrustworthy currency and see that only its own currency can be used. Currency competition is a good thing, and results in more reliable currency.

Re: Articles of Confederation

Edgar729 — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:19:58 GMT

joecochran:

JonBostwick:
In a few hundred years people will learn that 9/11 happened because there was no Department of Homeland Security.

You just made my day and made me depressed all in one sentence.

Me too lol!

Also, really great insight with the thought that "historians treat events as inevtiables". It is so true.

Re: Articles of Confederation

joecochran — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:33:50 GMT

JonBostwick:
In a few hundred years people will learn that 9/11 happened because there was no Department of Homeland Security.

You just made my day and made me depressed all in one sentence.

Re: Articles of Confederation

Bostwick — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:14:51 GMT

Webster:
Because the nationalists won, history looks at the events from their perspective, but most of the problems were merely disagreements with the form and powers of government rather than tangible difficulties.

Exactly. Historians like to look at historical events as inevitable. The Articles were replaced because they were bad, we know they were bad because they were replaced.

In a few hundred years people will learn that 9/11 happened because there was no Department of Homeland Security.

Re: Articles of Confederation

joecochran — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:05:47 GMT

A confederation can work, and I can immediately point to the Swiss Confederation as a working model, with 26 Individual Cantons. A simple clause to the Articles could very well have solved the trade problems, but instead they opted to scrap it.

Re: Articles of Confederation

Webster — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:41:45 GMT

My understanding after reading hundreds of pages of period articles on the subject is that the problems were caused by the solution. Those who wanted a national currency, saw the state currencies as a failure. Those who wanted a strong foreign policy saw the weak foreign policy of the Confederation as a problem. Those who wanted the federal government to have coercive power saw the lack of it as a detraction. Likewise, those jealous for freedom saw few problems. Because the nationalists won, history looks at the events from their perspective, but most of the problems were merely disagreements with the form and powers of government rather than tangible difficulties.

Articles of Confederation

sam72 — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:03:18 GMT

Going to college, one naturally hears (in many different classes) about how terrible the Articles of Confederation truely were for the colonists. Yes, we are told, they worked- for a time. But eventually too many problems emerged. They talk about the many limitations of the Articles: states taxing one another, printing money, tariffs, etc, etc. They tell us the Articles didn't grant enough central power. As a libertarian, I'm naturally inclined to disagree with this. Not only that, but I often see libertarians wishing to return to the Articles (at least, they say, it would be better than the constitution). Unfortunately, there seems to be a very sad lack of any historical research on the Articles from a more libertarian based position (and especially Austrian position). The mainstream historical research on the Articles seems to be pretty strong, and so my question is twofold:

1 ) Are the problems mentioned in mainstream historical textbooks about the Articles correct?

And...

2) If they are true, even if libertarians may like the fact that the Articles provided less centralized power, how would problems such as different currencies and dozens of different tariffs and whatnot be avoided in a confederacy? It almost seems that having a federal system, where there is a "freeir" system of trade between states (or countries, as in the EU), would be more beneficial to the people and business.