Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[kandrathe]

Yes. And in principle, I agree with you. But I didn't ask you whether it was 'correct' behavior. I asked you if it was behavior you thought was reasonably possible to expect from the majority of the population.

I believe it to be, and in some respects, the area where I live seems higher than average in civics awareness (e.g. high voter turn outs, and civic participation). I feel well represented in my locality, and my representatives at the state level are representative of my locality. The MSP metro area, however, unfairly dominates State politics, and so some changes are needed to ensure that rural areas get equal "rights". In general, I feel the suburban, and rural areas have more authentic representation, while the urban areas suffer from partisan politics. This often leads to stalemate. Our legislature tends to be progressive, being that most State senators, and representatives comes from the more urban areas. However, our governor has tended to be conservative, or libertarian. Our taxes are a bit too high, and we don't do enough to encourage business growth. We spend too much on social welfare. But, generally, things are pretty well run, and there isn't much corruption (we are probably pretty comparable to Scandinavian countries). The difference is our cultural attitude.

That is what I mean by "the art of the possible". Is the average person capable of knowing, understanding, and doing what is right? Or does he need guidance, perhaps even force, to do right?

Yes, I believe with the proper education. The one thing we should make really, really clear as part of compulsory education (after literacy), would be the role and responsibility of the individual within their society. I dare anyone to ask the average high school student to define or describe "inalienable rights"..**

It's still the old Jefferson-Hamilton argument. I wish that Jefferson had been right, but history falls squarely on Hamilton's side. Indeed, even Jefferson fell on Hamilton's side when it suited him.

If it were only that simple. I feel they were both right, and both wrong, but unwilling to seek a reasonable truth together. They were victims of their own egos, and yet very well educated and had great insights from which we can learn. Jefferson in many ways was a disastrous President, but what I respect about him is his ideas about limiting federal power. Had he been more effective, we might have solved the problem of constructing a republic which allows States more rights, or outlawed slavery soon after the Revolutionary war (preventing the Civil War altogether).

I cannot embrace an economic or social structure that is based on what I consider an incorrect assessment of human nature.

We have more than one nature. On the one hand, if our daily sustenance were derived from our own hard work, then we'd be motivated to get out and take care of ourselves. This is our primal drive for survival, and it makes us industrious and inventive as we seek to be efficient in the reducing our hardships and maximizing our benefits. On the other hand, we can be as kept cattle, willingly staying in our beds and getting fat, while sustenance is provided to us. This too is in our nature. If it rained manna from heaven, why in the world would you ever till a field again?

As to the rest, there are two questions that need to be considered independently. The first is whether we have a good form of government. If we do, we should try to preserve it and improve it. If we don't, we should replace it with whatever is better. And if we don't, the second question is moot.

It might be, if people understood it. We don't teach our people the underlying philosophies (e.g. Locke), and our school teachers seem to view basic civics as akin to imposing fascism.

The second question, if our government is of a good form, is it working as it should. I think you mix those two questions.

I fear it is not working. I fear we are on an unsustainable path, fueled only by borrowing. If, we did not have the .com bubble burst, exposing the sham that was "the emperor has no clothes" of seemingly unlimited technology potential. If, we did not have the housing bubble burst, exposing the sham that was again, "the emperor has no clothes" of seemingly unlimited demand for commercial, and residential growth. Then, with the GDP growth evidenced over the past 15 years, perhaps the borrowing was justified for that growth. But, the growth I believe to be a sham, which actually only transferred wealth from those that had little, to those that already have too much. We cannot make wealth out of thin air, by borrowing at 0% interest with no prospects for where to invest. Even then, the tree needs time to grow, before it bears fruit. This recession was a 20% or so correction (15 year setback) in the perception of that wealth. Today, we have 1990 wealth, with 2010 prices.

But, it goes deeper, back to the early 1900's too. During the WWI, WWII period, we became the war machine of the world, and I don't feel we've ever divested ourselves from that role, nor refocused our energies toward beating our swords back into plowshares. The world is fully exploited. We can no longer look (much) to newly unowned, unexploited lands for wealth. We need to turn our energies into construction, and stop building to mechanisms of destruction. Again, this is the way of the Pharaohs, and the Romans. As long as the conquests continued, and new wealth was brought home in the form of gold, jewels, and slaves, then the empire was growing, and the wretched excess was expressed in lavish building projects, many of which had no economic use. Such as, in the Twin Cities, we are again debating whether to fund the Vikings new football stadium. If football, is a lucrative venture, then building, owning, and maintaining the stadium, should be the team owners responsibility. We might certainly help to make it easier for this venture. Now one might look at the cycle of football, selling tickets, merchandise, hot dogs, beer, and whatever increased economic activity happens for their 7 or so home game days a year, but my gut says I don't think it is probably worth it.

So then, no, I don't see Federal borrowing as justified, if it is not an investment in future productivity. And our current malaise (and probably previous ones), makes sense, since the bulk of our spending sustains people, but does not invest for future prosperity.

Finally, I have to ask; if the United States started out with a (relatively) good government, and if that government has become worse, doesn't that imply that the people of the United States have failed in their limited responsibility of electing their representatives? If they are not competent to practice their limited responsibility, how do you conclude that they should be given more?

Yes. But, it was the death of a thousand cuts, with the Civil War, WWI era, and WWII era being fairly large gashes. There are a few dozen major SCOTUS decisions, that if revisited in reflective scholarship, would bring us back to a better Federal government that restored its original enumerated powers (e.g. Wickard v. Filburn).

There were times under Wilson, and FDR, where the government was "improved" drastically by the Congress, and SCOTUS in the name of progress, rather than by interpretation of our Constitution and at times of war, and threat to national security, we've seriously undermined the rights of citizens. I feel much of what's happened has been more knee jerk, than rational, practical, or pragmatic.

** I got 32/33 -- I missed one about the beliefs of the Puritans.