PDA

View Full Version : Isn't it utopian to think we could have a Constitutional government?




socialize_me
03-20-2009, 01:09 PM
Considering we created the First Bank of the United States in the same year we ratified the 10th amendment kind of blows into the face of people saying the Founding Fathers were Constitutionalists. Given the text of the 10th amendment, how the fuck could the Founders justify then creating the First Bank of the United States WITHIN THE SAME DAMN YEAR?!?! Blows my mind!! If the writers of the Constitution and the Founders of this country willingly violated the 10th amendment within the same year they advocated its passage sets the precedent that we need not obey any part of the Constitution. You think 222 years later we'll give a shit?? Nahh...if the Founders didn't care to be strict constructionists, we sure as hell won't.

Basically, the Constitution is a mere ceremonial relic that means absolutely jack shit to ANY government, administration, session of Congress, or the various [Chief Justice Name here] Courts we've had over the years.

Thomas Jefferson had no problem violating the Constitution with his expansion of the Presidency. The Alien and Sedition Acts were signed by John Adams who advocated American Secession from the train of abuses of the British Crown.

To me, getting back to a Constitutional government is completely futile. The United States has never been at a Constitutional level, EVER, yet we're all trying to get to this utopian concept. Isn't it time to try anarcho-capitalism, or are we going to continue with our experiment of the Constitutional Republic --- simply a tyranny of the minority. 535 members of Congress + 1 President + 9 Supreme Court justices legislate, execute, and adjudicate on behalf of 300 million people. Sounds like an oligarchy to me!!

Oh and we can't vote these fuckers out of office. Wasn't it William Penn that said "Let the people think they govern and they will be governed"??? Congress had an 8% approval rating and we re-elected 89% of them. Let me say that again (as Joe Biden would say), only 8% of Americans--EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT--approved of our Congress back in the 2008 elections, yet we re-elected 89% of them. Can I get an "LoL"?

Wanna make a bet Barack Obama gets re-elected just because he's "cool", is a media-whore, and fills out March Madness brackets?? How the fuck can you guys possibly compete with Americans by holding up the Constitution when all they care about is if their leaders drink shitty American beer (exclude Bud Lite Lime from the term "shitty American beer") and watch college basketball??

AuH20
03-20-2009, 01:17 PM
Not if the military abolishes our government and relinguishes control for another consitutional convention. Thats the big variable in these elites' plans. I'm far more concerned about spreading the constitutional message to the COs and the servicemen, as opposed to the clueless masses. A freed military could stop this charade we call a representative government in a few months.

Kraig
03-20-2009, 01:18 PM
Yep.

acptulsa
03-20-2009, 01:26 PM
No more utopian than The Brave New Anarchy. If we can't get our act sufficiently together to ensure we have people representing us who actually do, in fact, represent us, how the hell are we going to get people to agree to hunt down the killers of little old ladies on a voluntary basis?

socialize_me
03-20-2009, 01:31 PM
No more utopian than The Brave New Anarchy. If we can't get our act sufficiently together to ensure we have people representing us who actually do, in fact, represent us, how the hell are we going to get people to agree to hunt down the killers of little old ladies on a voluntary basis?

That isn't how anarcho-capitalism operates and you should know better.

Even so, given the generic arguments of having mob lynchings, etc., you can't convince me that there would be more dead people in the world than under government. In the 20th century, governments killed over 170 million people---that's not even including wars! You really think the deathtoll of serial killers under anarcho-capitalism would amount to more than 170 million people? Even if it were 169 million, would it not be better to have that system than to have one that kills a million extra?? I would think so!!

Again, there wouldn't be your lynch mobs that you're talking about, but even if there were, as i pointed out, it would be better than having government be the mob itself.

Truth Warrior
03-20-2009, 01:38 PM
I'd say no. Just HIGHLY improbable and unlikely. IF it happened, keeping it would be very difficult if not impossible.<IMHO>

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr


"Any 'system' that is crucially dependent on human reliability is inherently unreliable."

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:10 PM
Not if the military abolishes our government and relinguishes control for another consitutional convention. Thats the big variable in these elites' plans. I'm far more concerned about spreading the constitutional message to the COs and the servicemen, as opposed to the clueless masses. A freed military could stop this charade we call a representative government in a few months.

Or we can have a military junta!

What a plan! We can`t get politicians to give up power and conforn to the constitution, but we are going to get the military to give up the power once they take it in a coup. :eek:

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:11 PM
I'd say no. Just HIGHLY improbable and unlikely. IF it happened, keeping it would be very difficult if not impossible.<IMHO>

Your humble opinion is wrong. ;) There has never ever been such a thing as a limited government. It is perpetum mobile. A holly grail. A bunch of nonsense.

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:13 PM
Anything is Utopian that presumes a perfect society, according to some ideology.

Even as a minarchist I agree with anarcho-capitalist Truth Warrior's post above.

I would levy the same criticism toward anarcho-capitalism, but I think everyone grasps this basic concept: no matter how a society is initially framed, it will fall apart if the people living in the society fail to maintain their philosophy. No truer words have been spoken than this: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
03-20-2009, 02:18 PM
We must strive to keep one foot in reality and one foot in an ideal plane. The odds of ever truly attaining the status of a utopian society is impossible because there is a different idea of utopia for everyone but I do not believe it is out of order or pointless to expect our government to at least just follow what is written in the constitution. Of course there will always be those who wish to stray from our constitution whether it be with purely evil intents or by someone who thinks they are doing good but that does not mean that it is pointless to fight for what is right. If we just become complacent and never try to achieve better than what we have than what is the point of even getting up in the morning?

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:22 PM
Anything is Utopian that presumes a perfect society, according to some ideology.

Even as a minarchist I agree with anarcho-capitalist Truth Warrior's post above.

I would levy the same criticism toward anarcho-capitalism, but I think everyone grasps this basic concept: no matter how a society is initially framed, it will fall apart if the people living in the society fail to maintain their philosophy. No truer words have been spoken than this: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

TW`s post is wrong. Utopian is not what presumes "perfection". Utopian is what is at odds with basic principles of reason and logic and therefore simply can not be, regardless of any circumstances. Constitutional government, limited government, lawful government... all these things can not be not because they are perfect but because they are oxymoronic. They are at odds with logic itself.

A government can not be at the same time monopolistic and coercive and lawful and limited. You can not have lawful government without providing for an opt-out. Thus the constitution itself was never really lawful because it did not provide for an opt-out of an induvidual (and his property) only for the opt-out of the states. So the constitution itself was unconstitutional because it did not rest on natural law and the inalianable rights as it claimed to.

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:24 PM
Given the text of the 10th amendment, how the fuck could the Founders justify then creating the First Bank of the United States WITHIN THE SAME DAMN YEAR?!?! Blows my mind!!

The constitutional convention was a coup d`etat anyways. The way it was adopted was very controversial at the time and it greatly limited freedoms compared to the articles of condeferation.

It was at the time written to take away freedoms that were in the articles, not to guarantee any additional rights which had not been recognised before!

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:27 PM
TW`s post is wrong. Utopian is not what presumes "perfection". Utopian is what is at odds with basic principles of reason and logic and therefore simply can not be, regardless of any circumstances. Constitutional government, limited government, lawful government... all these things can not be not because they are perfect but because they are oxymoronic. They are at odds with logic itself.

A government can not be at the same time monopolistic and coercive and lawful and limited. You can not have lawful government without providing for an opt-out. Thus the constitution itself was never really lawful because it did not provide for an opt-out of an induvidual (and his property) only for the states. So the constitution itself was unconstitutional because it did not rest on natural law and the inalianable rights as it claimed.

You cannot opt out of being able to choose voluntary relationships. You can not opt out of being able to choose to infringe upon someone's property rights. The choices are yours, you own them. You choose to engage in voluntary relationships, or you choose to engage in force, or you choose to have no relationships at all.

There is no coercion in setting up a system whereby rights-infringement is punished.

We've gone over this time and again. A government does not have to be coercive to be a government.

Truth Warrior's post is correct.

Truth Warrior
03-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Your humble opinion is wrong. ;) There has never ever been such a thing as a limited government. It is perpetum mobile. A holly grail. A bunch of nonsense. Nice example of DISHONEST contextomy there. ;)


"A limited government is a contradiction in terms." -- Robert LeFevre

Kraig
03-20-2009, 02:34 PM
A government can not be at the same time monopolistic and coercive and lawful and limited.

Yet a government cannot exist without coercion and a monopoly on force in the region, which is why it can never remain in a lawful and limited state. Not sure if you realize it or not, but you hit the nail on the head with that statement.

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:34 PM
I won't argue that the Constitutional Convention was bullshit, and that the Constitution sucked, except to say that it was so much better than anything that had been tried before it that it led to the greatest period of human progress in history.

I also won't argue that government tends to move in the direction of more coercion. I do not know if a government can be instituted that completely avoids this problem, but as per my original post here, I highly doubt it. The only protection against systematic coercion is an armed, vigilant populace that cares.

I would be willing to live in a society of libertarian anarchists. I would not be willing to live in an anarchic society of some-libertarians, some-sociopaths - because I believe it would end up worse than our poorly framed Constitutional Republic did.

I am willing to try a better Constitution.

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 02:36 PM
Yet a government cannot exist without coercion and a monopoly on force in the region, which is why it can never remain in a lawful and limited state. Not sure if you realize it or not, but you hit the nail on the head with that statement.

Coercion against WHOM? Coercion against libertarians, or coercion against murderers and rapists?

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:38 PM
You cannot opt out of being able to choose voluntary relationships. You can not opt out of being able to choose to infringe upon someone's property rights. The choices are yours, you own them. You choose to engage in voluntary relationships, or you choose to engage in force, or you choose to have no relationships at all.

Yes and the state choses to engage in force and aggression.


There is no coercion in setting up a system whereby rights-infringement is punished.

Unless the system which supposedly protects the rights mandates that these same rights be violated. In other name - a state.





We've gone over this time and again. A government does not have to be coercive to be a government.



But a government which is not coercive is not at odds with anarchy. It is compatible with it. A government by consent is anarchy.

Tribal elders of the plains indians governed through consent not through force. That was a stateless society. Anarchy.

But every state on the other hand has a government which is coercive. They may be consensual to some extent, but never fully so. Thus they all violate the very rights they claim to protect.

Kraig
03-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Coercion against WHOM? Coercion against libertarians, or coercion against murderers and rapists?

Doesn't matter, anyone who doesn't want it, some with good reasons some with bad. The moment the let people freely choose not to be governed is the moment they cease to be a government.

Kraig
03-20-2009, 02:42 PM
But a government which is not coercive is not at odds with anarchy.

That's because it would no longer be a government. It would be an optional security/court system out there on the free market.

sailor
03-20-2009, 02:42 PM
Nice example of DISHONEST contextomy there. ;)

I`m not being dishonest. I just can not always fully comprehend the debts of your spirals, o great one! You must try to dumb yourself down even more for our benefit thou hater of shepherds!

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 03:48 PM
Yes and the state choses to engage in force and aggression.



Unless the system which supposedly protects the rights mandates that these same rights be violated. In other name - a state.




But a government which is not coercive is not at odds with anarchy. It is compatible with it. A government by consent is anarchy.

Tribal elders of the plains indians governed through consent not through force. That was a stateless society. Anarchy.

But every state on the other hand has a government which is coercive. They may be consensual to some extent, but never fully so. Thus they all violate the very rights they claim to protect.

You cannot, in the name of some high moral principle, OPT-OUT of NOT RESPECTING SOMEONE'S RIGHTS. There is no coercion involved in not ALLOWING people to opt-out of respecting one another's rights.

Opting out of a non-coercive government would mean either: A) Moving to another country or B) Violating someone's rights.

The Indians were primitive because they had no private property. If your goal is to eliminate private property, then yeah... go with tribalism. If your goal is capitalism, don't pretend that tribalism will accomplish this. Its laughable.

Kraig
03-20-2009, 03:49 PM
Opting out of a non-coercive government would mean either: A) Moving to another country or B) Violating someone's rights

What is a non-coercive government going to do if I get robbed?

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 03:51 PM
What is a non-coercive government going to do if I get robbed?

That's up to you. Did you report the theft?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
03-20-2009, 03:54 PM
Considering we created the First Bank of the United States in the same year we ratified the 10th amendment kind of blows into the face of people saying the Founding Fathers were Constitutionalists. Given the text of the 10th amendment, how the fuck could the Founders justify then creating the First Bank of the United States WITHIN THE SAME DAMN YEAR?!?! Blows my mind!! If the writers of the Constitution and the Founders of this country willingly violated the 10th amendment within the same year they advocated its passage sets the precedent that we need not obey any part of the Constitution. You think 222 years later we'll give a shit?? Nahh...if the Founders didn't care to be strict constructionists, we sure as hell won't.

Basically, the Constitution is a mere ceremonial relic that means absolutely jack shit to ANY government, administration, session of Congress, or the various [Chief Justice Name here] Courts we've had over the years.

Thomas Jefferson had no problem violating the Constitution with his expansion of the Presidency. The Alien and Sedition Acts were signed by John Adams who advocated American Secession from the train of abuses of the British Crown.

To me, getting back to a Constitutional government is completely futile. The United States has never been at a Constitutional level, EVER, yet we're all trying to get to this utopian concept. Isn't it time to try anarcho-capitalism, or are we going to continue with our experiment of the Constitutional Republic --- simply a tyranny of the minority. 535 members of Congress + 1 President + 9 Supreme Court justices legislate, execute, and adjudicate on behalf of 300 million people. Sounds like an oligarchy to me!!

Oh and we can't vote these fuckers out of office. Wasn't it William Penn that said "Let the people think they govern and they will be governed"??? Congress had an 8% approval rating and we re-elected 89% of them. Let me say that again (as Joe Biden would say), only 8% of Americans--EIGHT FUCKING PERCENT--approved of our Congress back in the 2008 elections, yet we re-elected 89% of them. Can I get an "LoL"?

Wanna make a bet Barack Obama gets re-elected just because he's "cool", is a media-whore, and fills out March Madness brackets?? How the fuck can you guys possibly compete with Americans by holding up the Constitution when all they care about is if their leaders drink shitty American beer (exclude Bud Lite Lime from the term "shitty American beer") and watch college basketball??

The American ideal rests on the premise that knowing the truth is greater in power than what tyranny does as a result of knowing it.
Once again, we need to avoid beating around the bush by reducing tyranny down to what it truly is. It is a return to Pimping and whoring. In the cruel world outside of the United States, only the gentlemanly pimps are considered to have a business. In the United States, our Founding-Fathers established through the use of natural law that all men are created equal with a business agenda. In turn, God created man as male and female.
Or, as Socrates would have concluded, every soul reduces down to perfection. Since both men and women have a soul, he and she together have a business agenda.
Not just the pimp.

Xenophage
03-20-2009, 04:20 PM
The American ideal rests on the premise that knowing the truth is greater in power than what tyranny does as a result of knowing it.
Once again, we need to avoid beating around the bush by reducing tyranny down to what it truly is. It is a return to Pimping and whoring. In the cruel world outside of the United States, only the gentlemanly pimps are considered to have a business. In the United States, our Founding-Fathers established through the use of natural law that all men are created equal with a business agenda. In turn, God created man as male and female.
Or, as Socrates would have concluded, every soul reduces down to perfection. Since both men and women have a soul, he and she together have a business agenda.
Not just the pimp.

Is EVERYTHING about sex with you?

Get your mind out of the gutter, you dirty old uncle!

Truth Warrior
03-20-2009, 05:07 PM
I`m not being dishonest. I just can not always fully comprehend the debts of your spirals, o great one! You must try to dumb yourself down even more for our benefit thou hater of shepherds!

How does your inability to "always fully comprehend" become MY PROBLEM? :rolleyes: Call "Truth Remedial Teacher". :p Use the frickin' "Quote" button. That's what it's for.

Contextomy!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)

sailor
03-20-2009, 06:37 PM
You cannot, in the name of some high moral principle, OPT-OUT of NOT RESPECTING SOMEONE'S RIGHTS. There is no coercion involved in not ALLOWING people to opt-out of respecting one another's rights.

I see you don`t have a clue what anarchy means. Still don`t put words into my mouth. I said NOTHING about opting out of respecting people`s rights.

Infact coercive governments are those who claim they can opt-out from respecting our rights to freedom and property in all sorts of ways.


Opting out of a non-coercive government would mean either: A) Moving to another country or B) Violating someone's rights.

A crock of shit. Government of a minarchy is not non-coercive.

It is coercive as it breaks the non agression principle and breaks natural law and denies unalianble natural rights of man.



The Indians were primitive because they had no private property. If your goal is to eliminate private property, then yeah... go with tribalism. If your goal is capitalism, don't pretend that tribalism will accomplish this. Its laughable.

Bullshit. Indians were primitive because they had no capital accumulation and therefore no division of labour.

They had private property. What tree did you climb down from? Read up on when property makes sense. Only when there is scarcity. There is no point in owning air because it is not scarce! - There is enough for everyone.

Indians had private property in those things that were SCARCE. LIKE HORSES. Horses were privately owned by inuvidual warriors. They didn`t know property in terms of land because the land was not scarce to them since they had no need for it being hunters not farmers.

So who is "laughable" now?

sailor
03-20-2009, 06:43 PM
How does your inability to "always fully comprehend" become MY PROBLEM? :rolleyes: Call "Truth Remedial Teacher". :p Use the frickin' "Quote" button. That's what it's for.

Contextomy!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)

Your wisecracking is your problem. When you don`t make an effort to be properly understood, you don`t get to complain when you get misunderstood. Deal with it.

I can only read what is before me. I can not read thoughs.

Truth Warrior
03-21-2009, 09:19 AM
Your wisecracking is your problem. When you don`t make an effort to be properly understood, you don`t get to complain when you get misunderstood. Deal with it.

I can only read what is before me. I can not read thoughs. You fail to fully comprehend. I wasn't wisecracking. Deal with it.