Which people? Europeans? People from the 17th Century? People who disagree with you? Over and over you have jumped to conclusions based on knowing nothing significant about me. All you know is I disagree with you on 1 specific subject. In fact, I'm not sure you even know what it is you disagree with. You just assume things based on, what? Race? You have assumed that you can legitimately assume things about 'Europeans', while assuming that 'Europeans' must think about the Americans the way you do about Europeans. Straight forward projection of your own biases.

Basic order of events: The constitution was written after the revolutionary war. Those crooks had lost their stake in the US by the time the constitution came along. There was no upper-class, not by previous standards. 'Upper class' started to become what we think of it now: i.e. straight up wealth.

FYI:

John Jay

James Madison explaining why the US government shouldn't be like England's.

What formally delineates state versus federal systems is another matter. The fact that you don't understand the mechanics of modern money systems isn't my problem.

You can't give out pompous indignation about ignorance of history, with credibility, while not understanding the significance of a constitution being written "by land owners for land owners" while the common modern interpretation is that it is "by the people for the people".

There is a fundamental difference between how the UK relates to the EU and how US states relate to the US government: The UK issues it's own currency. Those are all very good reasons for why your federal government should be limited, and I agree... but I never argued that there is no valid reason to limit federal government. So you listing some reasons is good but... so what? You didn't actually respond to the central point, relating back to the start of this: the proposition that the constitution was written by and for capital owners.

...which you just assumed for some reason, then...

...that's some sort of meta-irony.

It's interesting to look at this discussion from outside the US. For example, the manifest difference between the federal government and state government. They're both governments. And states vary hugely in size and population and any number of factors. The narrative seems to talk about the federal government as this monster that has to be controlled, while state governments are mostly left out of that narrative, and I've yet to see an explanation for why they are cast so differently. I can't see what the argument is for state level government being the right 'size' and federal not. It's just taken because it is. I mean why not have 1000 states? Or 6? Would those people against federal government turn their sites to state government if they ever achieved their current goals? Anyway, I was making a contextual observation. When talking about the US constitution (and for that matter I think the same is true of the magna carta) it's cast into a narrative involving two core entities: the people and the government. And then a discussion about the ratio of fed to state authority. I think, given the context in which these documents were written, it's more accurate to recognise at least 3 entities: Tenants, Landlords and the Government. In the UK and other European countries it's perhaps more like 5: Serfs, Tenants, Landlords, Nobles and the Government. Then the conversation is really about how the government reflects the wishes of the other entities. When documents like the Constitution or the Magna Carta talk about 'freemen' they refer to land owners. The magna carta was written explicitly to protect land owners from the common law. If you look at the opinions of those involved in writing the US constitution it seems clear that at the time it was understood that only land owners have a vested interest in government. So, jumping to now, there is a section of US society that sees the limitation of federal authority as a manifest goal that is held axiomatically, but you have to ask: Who is the axiomatic limitation of federal authority designed to protect, and from whom?

Seriously, what's with this us-and-them attitude? The UK is a polyarchy.

What does my country have to do with anything? The UK is an Oligarchy. Why d'you think I think my country is special? I never said anything to give that impression. You have implanted your own interpretation of my mind. What's with the 'us-and-them' attitude? "Electing leaders is democracy if you are given distinct choices in candidates with differing philosophies. " Democracy is a theoretical abstraction, perhaps one that can never exist. Who knows. In the real world there are pragmatic steps that have to be taken and what you call 'direct democracy' might not be practical. Electing leaders is just a pragmatic approach. One of many. This is the difference. But having an election to decide who runs the country is just that: voting for a leader. Just like voting for the best singer on TV doesn't ensure democracy, it just applies the procedure of voting to choosing a winner. Whether electing leaders creates a democratic government depends one whether those leaders implement the public's policy choices. If the political system, by it's design, doesn't ensure that those 'leaders' implement the peoples policy then that system can't be said to be a democracy, but rather what some people call a procedural democracy.

You are confusing Democracy with Representation, illustrated by you not seeing that 'partial democracy' is a contradiction in terms. Democracy isn't voting for things or electing leaders. Democracy is implementing policies reflective of the population's requirements. Representation and voting for representatives are just pragmatic routines. I would argue that in a real democracy you vote for policies and the people in office should be instantly recalled when they deviate from agreed policy. Representatives should be interchangeable, and 'leaders' shouldn't even exist in a democratic government. Electing leaders is not democracy

The US Constitution was written by Google's ancestors. They had the same motivation to limit the federal government then as Google does now: The federal government is a competitor. Geographically connected states can be spanned, with little cost, by any company with enough resources, so a company can grow big enough to go toe-to-toe with a state government. Federal government, on the other hand, is harder to fight with.

Savings are government deficit. For the non-government sector to save there has to be a surplus. For the non government sector to have a surplus the public sector must run a deficit. Every dollar in existence was issued through a deficit. Money is created out of nothing because that's the only way it can be created, but the government is almost always the last step in the process. And the obsession with inflation is pretty weird. Eco-metrics don't suffer. Numbers don't feel pain or starve to death. A real threat to sentient beings is from things like unemployment, social immobility, lack of education or healthcare. These are real social problems with real effects that are for more of a threat than the inflation boogy-man. The government issues currency mostly IN RESPONSE TO the non-government sector issuing debt. That debt HAS TO BE issued in order to fund savings and investment, which HAS TO happen in order for new jobs to be funded. Refusing simply stops new employment from being funded. These real social problems cause the economy to become deficient, reducing the usefulness of the economies sovereign currency, causing the government, when it HAS TO issue new currency to issue more and more as a simple reflection of the failing value of the currency caused by real social problems. The US can never be forced to default on a debt denominated in dollars. It just isn't possible. It can't even be forced to pay interest to foreign holders of debt. Governments pay interest to purely control interest rates. And dollars can only be spent in the US, so all add to aggregate demand for US products. If the debt is denominated in gold, it can default if it can't get enough gold.

No.. you have to believe that 1) someone has a mandatory payment to make and 2) that they can make that payment in that currency. That's the difference between dollars or pounds or yen and pieces of paper (cloth actually I think).

This is an interesting thought experiment but it has no connection with reality. Money isn't created or issued by someone deciding that everything is worth whatever. It's like saying "imagine all metres were an inch long". That won't make everyone think it.

So in the real world, where real things happen, this isn't near true. Money is created when banks issue loans. Banks issue loans based on market forces and do so without government permission and do so whether they have reserves or not. In fact, in reality anyone can create money, and people do every time they issue an IOU, the difference is whether a third party would accept them in exchange for things. Saying money is independent of trading is like saying debt is independent of trading: nonsense.