The first three paragraphs represent a highly propagandised view of the US governmental system and, in this particular case, somewhat internally confused (celebrating female suffrage at the same time as the misogynistic trans movement?!). It's false in many ways and the best critics of such propaganda are often US Americans themselves (one of whom I quote below).
The ratification of the present US Constitution actually represented an overthrow of the earlier Constitution for the United States, the Articles of Confederation. The push for the new one was perceived as a counter-revolution by many at the time and was opposed by the 'Anti-Federalists' (a bit of a misnomer). They published many papers criticising the loss of state rights, the creation of an executive President (who they thought would amass greater powers over time) and loss of individual liberties. They lost the struggle against ratification (after the 'Federalists' played some dirty tricks) but succeeded in getting the Bill of Rights passed, which somewhat helped defray the loss of liberties brought about by the new Constitution.
William J. Sidis' commentary on this time :
The Plan for the Overthrow. When the conspirators in Philadelphia adjourned in September, 1787, a complete plan for a new government to overthrow the First Republic came out of the secret session, and was presented to the public. It was not a plan for open dictatorship or monarchy, but compromised by having a form of government which was externally democratic and similar in general appearance to some of the state governments, yet enough power was centralized at a single point to enable one person to take over complete control whenever desired. Even so, three members of the secret session actually refused to sign the document, apparently on the grounds that too much concession to democracy had been made.
The "Federal Constitution," as it was called (in contrast to the existing constitution, known as the "Articles of Confederation") bristled with declarations of authority and bans and prohibitions at every point, especially where the States or Congress were concerned. The Congress of the proposed new government was hamstrung by being divided against itself, in order to make it easy to deadlock whenever the proposed two Houses should disagree on anything. A central executive authority was created, in the hands of a single person, called "President of the United States," after the title of the nominal head of the First Republic; but the difference was that while, in the First Republic, the President was merely a presiding officer with no personal power, under the proposed new system the President, contrary to the implication of the title, would do no presiding but could veto any actions of Congress, had complete control of the army and navy and held the purse-strings of the treasury. While under the First Republic the members of Congress were paid by the States that sent them, thus keeping them representatives of their constituency, under the proposed government to overthrow the First Republic, Congressmen would be paid by the Federal treasury (which was to be controlled by the President) and were not subject to recall during their terms, so that, once elected, they would for their entire terms be dependent on the President rather than on their constituents. One of the two Houses of the new Congress (called the Senate because, in line with the Cincinnati idea of gradual introduction of dictatorship on the lines of the ancient Roman Empire, Roman names were supposed to be in order) was arranged so that it would never change completely at any time, but one-third of the members would go out of office every two years, so that the majority would always be composed of members who were not dependent on the latest elections and whom the executive head (who was in closer contact with them than with the other House, according to the plan) could have reduced more to his will, especially through continued control of the purse-strings. In addition, the President, with an almost complete veto power over Congress, and with the duty of giving them an annual program of recommendations as to what would be expected of them in the way of legislation, would, it was expected by those who drew up this plan, be in a position to force any sort of legislation he wanted, in spite of the mandates of the States or the individual opinions of the members of Congress.
I think the favourable comparison that the author is trying to make between the highly flawed US governmental system (which has been steadily getting worse and shows no signs of a reversal from that trend) and the brilliant design of Bitcoin, protected by its algorithms and its users and not by law or by force of arms is highly confused and unhelpful. I don't think it would be a view much shared by Bitcoin users outside the U.S. and I also think it would be viewed sceptically by many US Americans too (who, as I said above, have often been the best critics of the US governmental system).
If the 'big blockers' had won in 2017 then we would have experienced the same counter-revolution that the US suffered in 1787/1788, with the ratification of the new Constitution. Fortunately for Bitcoin, the users, the plebs, succeeded this time against an attempted Establishment takeover.
which has been steadily getting worse and shows no signs of a reversal from that trend
If you could name the year and President when America was at its heights or in a significantly better state of being, I'd like to hear it. I assume you have an idea based on the statement.
If the 'big blockers' had won in 2017...
The 2017 big bockers analogy isn't accurate. It's much more like the Civil War, when the the Confederate secessionists drafted their own messy constitution. They tried, they failed, and to this day some still cry about it. Guess which side acquired all the value?
protected by its algorithms and its users and not by law or by force of arms
My point was how the bitcoin protocol would arrange the global financial system, which I felt looked very much like the US government design pattern. I concede failing in making this point well enough in retrospect. For that I apologize.
The Articles of Confederation fell for a reason. You ever read it? What exactly did we miss out on? Maybe Canada (Article 11). Every state agreed to sign the Constitution for good reason. In 234 years the states have never even called a Constitutional Convention to try and change it. We got it very right, and I think it's fair to say its influence has spread far, wide, and isn't done.
reply
If you could name the year and President when America was at its heights or in a significantly better state of being,
I never use 'America' as shorthand for the United States of America but presuming you are doing this here then I would give the period 1776 to 1788. This period didn't have an executive president (it did have presidents, but they acted only as presiding officers).
There has never been a good (executive) President of the USA. The position is a corrupt one (corrupts the system of government). There have only been awful Presidents and 'less awful' ones (which continues to be the only choice the people are offered today). The USA has only been on a continual path towards greater corruption and expansionist war-mongering and plundering of weaker powers since the counter-revolution was successfully achieved in 1788. Being asked to name a better US President is like being asked to name a better Roman Emperor (after the fall of the Republic).
And no, I do not agree that the blocksize wars were anything like the US Civil War. The Civil War was a fight against centralised power (in Washington) and an attempt to break free from it. It was a fight against an already centralised power. And that power became centralised after the counter-revolution of 1787/1788 and the ratification of the new Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were consciously drawn up to create a weak central government and to limit the powers of that government, retaining most power in the states. That system was overthrown by the Establishment, which, as ever, wanted power centralised so that they could own it and control it and profit from it. And that is also what the attempt by the 'big blockers' in 2017 was - to centralise power away from Bitcoin's fundamental focus on decentralisation so that the corporate powers behind the attempt could take over Bitcoin and control it.
reply
There Articles of Confederation were really quite overrated, bombing for good reason. Without a judicial branch you lose checks and balances, and don't have legal precedent that can build on itself. That would be like trying to obtain transaction finality with one confirmation and a difficulty adjustment that never changes. Our views differ quite a bit with the Articles. They failed. The Constitution never did. There wasn't a central government of any relevant standing at the time. Many states rulers liked their fiefdom, and didn't want to decentralize. They didn't want to relinquish any power. Didn't want a country at all really. But in microcosm, people finally realized that wasn't in the nation's interest at large. By the end of the Articles, we got a pretty good idea what the people thought of it after Shay's Rebellion. What's strange is you think that over time, which is all that matters, that these autonomous state governments would've directionally become what? Ideal Austrian communes, bursting with freedom and prosperity. Yeah right, they would've become autocracies of the worst kind, because that's what every man is inside, and it's up to the design pattern of a system or government to limit and sublimate it. . The Civil War and bitcoin hard fork share more similarities than the Article's era. You know that and are just being difficult. Admit it. The Article's era is more similar to the era when the Bitcoin Foundation was running, before it was dissolved.
reply
then I would give the period 1776 to 1788. This period didn't have an executive president
Is this the only metric you consider for the state of being of the US?
reply
No; I mentioned the president there because I was asked "the year and President".
reply
rockstar, u seem like the type that doesn't like labels, but if you categorized your political stance (not donkeys or elephants) what would u say
reply