<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Aug 19, 2016, at 10:53 AM, spike <<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>…</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Dave Sill<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] To vote or not to vote<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:27 PM, spike <<a href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>>… Indeed sir? How would any such system be free of the same factors we see in the USA? This planet’s collective humanity would evolve power grabbing dictators that would make Evil Emperor Palpatine look like Kermit the Frog by comparison, even ignoring the similar skin tone.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">>…Hey, I'm not the one who postulated a world government. :-) <o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Noted, thanks. Imagine such a thing, then feel free to speculate on the outcome. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Note that along with the obvious risks are some clear benefits: it would allow everyone to greatly reduce military expenditures and eliminate war, just as the USA has state militias but they don’t cost much and don’t amount to much. They are apparently required by the second amendment to our constitution. That looks to me like a perfectlyclear instruction to maintain a well-regulated militia or citizen army is necessary to the security of a free state.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">>…</span> If the power is unlimited, the abuses will be horrendous…<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Truer words are seldom spoken.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">>…The founding fathers of the US apparently tried to devise a system with limited powers, but if that was really their goal then they've failed because federal authority now covers anything it wants to cover…<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Dave. Please, my son, please listen to your old Uncle Spike: They didn’t fail. We did. This is all our fault and none of theirs. They succeeded, we failed.</p></div></div></div></blockquote><br><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><div>I question whether they all wanted limited powers. Certainly, some of them wanted a government with much more power, one that might rival European powers of that time in scope. See:</div><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><a href="http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/24/revisiting-the-us-constitution">http://reason.com/archives/2016/01/24/revisiting-the-us-constitution</a><br><br>Also, as should be obvious, if you devise a system that's supposed to be self-limiting and it's not, then you have failed, regardless of whether later folks living under it share any blame. The takeaway here should not be that we adore and idolize the designers -- who were only borrowing kludges from other systems -- but that admit a piece of paper -- admittedly, a legalistic compromise written by committee -- is not a good way to limit power. (And, no, it didn't work at limiting power until some time long after the Framers were dead. It expanded power from the start and continued to do so in the immediate decade following Ratification.)<br><br></span><div style="line-height: normal;"><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="line-height: 20px; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"> Sample my Kindle books via:</span></div><div style="line-height: normal;"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><font color="#000000">http://author.to/DanUst</font></a></div></div></div></div></body></html>