I stop reading and I comment before I continue reading.
I stopped here:
"First, the way I understand it, the Articles of Confederation weren't working for the original states the way they hoped they would."
Those who were promised profits for the Revolutionary War, you know the routine I'm sure, you know, we all know, those who profit from war are not happy about not getting their profits from their no bid contracts, where they barely even managed to supply the shoes and things on their end of the contract, but they still demand payments, ON PAR, for their "contributions" in the war effort, and sure enough, yes, those guys are not happy about how a Voluntary Union works, they tend to be found out, and no one pays them, so what else is new?
"weren't working for the original states the way they hoped they would"
Shays's Rebellion after The Revolutionary War, and before The Constitution Usurpation, is a legal precedent worth knowing about, and here is a few sources of information that are well references for further study:
The reason why the Central Bankers, Slave Traders, War Profiteers, Monarchists, Monopolists, Criminals with Badges, the reason why they didn't like the Voluntary Union is simple, obvious, and accurately measurable, slaves that have power, such as the power of knowledge, are apt to avoid being slaves.
I don't want to sound as if I am raining on your parade either, not at all, if you are to zero in on money competition, instead of giving the "federal" employees any credit at all, then you gain, each Constitutionally Limited Republic (you), gain, gain, gain, the POWER to say NO, as in NO We The People in this State (Republic or Sovereign State), we, you, me, I, us, won't, no, we won't, pay for that, or that, or that, so buzz off.
That is what "they" didn't like about The Articles of Confederation.
The States still had the POWER to say no.
No, no, we can have our own Legal Money Power, without your offer of a Single, Monopoly, Money Power that just so happens to be fraudulent, criminal, and a case of extortion made legal, so not thanks.
Sure there were criminals running the States too, so they tried, and even succeeded (Massachusetts) to run their own Money Frauds and Extortion Rackets, but the POINT of a Federation is that the free people could vote with their feet without a "federal" power enforcing slavery.
Daniel Shays's walked on up to Vermont after the Massachusetts criminals (with badges) forced that free person out of that Slave State.
What happens when all the wannabe Masters and all the wannabe Slaves vote with their feet, freely, to the Slave States, and everyone else votes with their feet to the Free States?
That was the point. That was the design of a Federation, which is opposite the design of a false federation, the point was to find out what happens when free people have a free state of their own making to be a part of, voluntarily.
Criminals are criminals and they know how to take over governments, and that was known back then, so why is it not known now?
So if you will return back to a Federation then you will have the power to offer competitive money, you will, I will, and any other competitor will, because failure to have that in place will result in ONE MONEY POWER.
How easy it is to accurately measure how EVIL one money POWER is in fact?
That is the "official" record of the crime in progress. The criminals still claim that they are doing legitimate work.
They are frauds, they are extortionists, they are counterfeiters, they are money launderers, they are rapists, they are pedophiles, they are torturers, they are serial killers, they are mass murderers, they are war profiteers, they are sociopaths, they are psychopaths, they are pathological liars, they are easy to find, all one, or all many, have to do is follow the Federal Reserve Inculpatory Notes of the crime in progress to the source of those Notes.
If your efforts result in 50 State Employees with 50 Separate Criminal Fraud and Extortion Rackets, each with their own Legal Fraud Money Monopoly, then that is effectively the same thing as what exists now with one VITAL exception.
The Victims can see, from that vantage point, which Criminal Gangs are not as Criminal as the next one, on a list of Criminal Gangs, and of the 50 Criminal Gangs with the 50 competitive Money Supplied which one sets the bar the lowest?
Which of the worst Legal Money Power is the highest quality and least expensive from a VICTIMS viewpoint?
The World Reserve Currency POWER is always the least expensive from the victims viewpoints, so all the other gangs of criminals with badges are using more destructive money powers, growing fat on the backs of their victims faster.
Where is any honest money?
What did Iceland do recently?
What is Utah working at doing right now?
How many other States are working to move back to honest, accurate, competitive, high quality, and low cost money?
Is there anything on your list of things to do that move toward competitive offerings of high quality and low cost legal money?
If so then that goes right to the heart of the Vampires like a wooden stake.
"Since there were only 13 states back then, and they couldn't get just 13 states to keep the Articles of Confederation in place, I don't see how we could get 50 states to do it now."
The criminals, or Central Bankers, whatever you want to call them, called themselves Federalists, they were not Federalists, they were Slave Traders, Monarchists, Nationalists, hell they were Communists before the Communists stole their ideas from those false Federalists.
How well does deception work?
The actual people, like Patrick Henry, and like George Mason, to name only 2, were active in promoting an effective Confederation, or Federal Union, or Federation, and so the Communists of the day, had an idea, and it worked, their idea was to call the people working effectively at building and maintaining a Voluntary Union, or Federation, call them, call those guys, Anti-Federalists.
See how that worked?
Hi, I'm a Nationalists working to enslave you.
No, that does not work.
They say, hi, I am a Federalists, and they do that because it is the same routine as the wolf wearing a sheep costume.
Why is that tough to know?
I don't know.
How did "they" get their Monopoly Legal Power or Crime made Legal, when so many people in those days were working at creating a Voluntary Union?
They lied, they promised things, then they were elected, then they broke their promises.
"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "n countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
I am nobody, but the facts speak for themselves. I don't have an argument. Why would I argue?
Voluntary association is what it is, does what it does, and the opposite does what it does, because that is how criminals do things.
"Second, the way the founders/framers went about creating and ratifying the Constitution was the wrong precedent to set starting out with that new form of government."
Note, please, how to me your words confess a mind that has been monopolized. There were not ONE GROUP of happy fellows called founders/framers, there were the genuine volunteers and there were the criminals who wore the volunteer suits as a disguise.
Criminals can't take over government if they say in advance, hey, look at us, we are here to enslave you.
When the victims are led to believe that there is only ONE authority, well, what do you think happens?
"It was definitely screwed up from the beginning. But they did it, and the people allowed it to happen."
They is us, us is they, we are them? The criminals do what criminals do, so blaming us for what the criminals do is how the criminals do what the criminals do perpetually. We blame ourselves for what they do, and they blame us for what they do, and everything works that way until a competitive idea is tried.
"Third, as soon as they put the Constitution in place, they started violating it."
Patrick Henry, George Mason, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, warned of the Usurpation taking place so who are "they"?
Everyone? All the "founders" of a republic (each State) or all the "founders" of a Confederation or Federation?
No, it was the criminals at work, hidden within those actual founders who actually worked to create and maintain voluntary government.
I want to return to finish this, but for now it is lunch time.
"As bad as it is, it provides us with a means to protect ourselves against the monstrosity of a government that is in our face right now. All we have to do is exercise the means. I'm not excited about the prospect of opening up the can of worms that would be involved in replacing the Constitution. There's too much bad stuff happening, and there's no one to trust to get a replacement document "right", whatever that means."
I call that Checkmate. The criminals take away the power to defend against crime by offering crime as the defense against crime. It works wonders, every expense of power employed to fight the criminals empowers the criminals instead while the victims grow weaker with every failed attempt.
A constitutionally limited Republic is a workable method of defending liberty from unlimited or criminal gangs where the criminal gangs are very powerful, where the criminal gangs call themselves legitimate, with this or that false front.
Where is there a constitutionally limited Republic? If you have the solution, to find a working constitutionally limited Republic then that is a start.
Will all the other criminals in all the other unlimited Despotic States gang up on those who dare to limit the criminals from perpetrating heinous crimes against humanity?
No, not these days, because these days the lid is being blown off the facade that hides the criminals, and every effort to increase their criminal power is now adding to the mounting evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those criminals are nothing but criminals.
They, those criminals, those criminals hiding behind a thin and growing thinner facade of legitimacy, reach for World War when the natives grow restless, as the natives are now very restless.
If you have been at this whistle blowing, this job of playing the part of Paul Revere for as long as I have, for the past 25 years, then you may see what I see, which is a quickening, an awakening, where once no one listened to a word of warning, and if someone did listen then would shout you down, ridicule you, attack you viciously, for daring the speak ill of the criminals behind their curtains, and where now, instead, more people are offering more evidence, from more sources, proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the criminals have taken over, here, here, here, and here.
So where is the Constitution that Limits those criminals so that those criminals are not so powerful? The ONE MONOPOLY Constitution or the Competitive, lesser power, State Constitutions?
If all power has been annexed, already, while the criminals used the ONE MONOPOLY Constitution to do all that annexing, do you really think that that Constitution limits any of the criminals in any way?
Those who employ written law to defend Liberty, as far as I've seen, are employing The Bill of Rights, not The Constitution, and in that way, in this State, or that State, a defender of Liberty has power, because of those additions to the ONE MONOPOLY Constitution.
Those additions were attachments demanded by what little power was left in the hands of the true Federalists who were at that time period called Anti-Federalists by those who managed to gain fraudulent control of Mass Media during that time period.
Again, the fix is not possible with Monopoly Power, the fix is the opposite, the fix is possible with many competitive solutions, such as 50 State Constitutions whereby The People in those States can pay for, nor not pay for, join, or not join, a Voluntary Federal Union, and if a person is in one of those States that is working to Consolidate, or Annex, all the other States into ONE MONOPOLY, or Despotic Nation State, then The People who know better, like Daniel Shays's exemplified in the past, those people, knowing better, can defend Liberty by fighting against, or moving to an actual, working, Constitutionally Limited Republic, or Sovereign State, whereby The People in that State are not working to Monopolize, Take over, Annex, Incorporate, all States into ONE POWER, and the key, the thing to look for, is the MONEY POWER.
Is there only ONE LEGAL MONEY?
If there is, then there is only ONE POWER.
Follow the one money to the source of it, and there are the culprits caught with their blood red hands.
"There's too much bad stuff happening, and there's no one to trust to get a replacement document "right", whatever that means."
That is again, Checkmate, as no one can accurately identify the difference between right and wrong? If someone creates an involuntary association, by definition, by that fact, there is someone perpetrating a crime, an aggressor is accurately identified as the aggressor moves aggressively upon a targeted victim.
Why is that at all difficult to know, in any case whatsoever?
Did you read the work done by Murray Rothbard on Generalisimo Washington?
His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen.
People are nowadays so full of crap that people actually claim that democracy is Mob Rule.
That is false.
A democratic army of militiamen were exemplified, defined, by those volunteers. All volunteers.
What does that mean?
A Voluntary Association.
What is the opposite?
I have work to do, I want to return to this later.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: