Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause For Freedom

[powerofreason]

There are some on this forum with a disturbingly mindless love of the Constitution. The Constitution does describe a superior form of government to the one we are currently enslaved under, that is for sure. But I think some on this forum could benefit from reading the following article.



Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom

by Manuel Lora

Libertarians err when they use the Constitution to further their philosophy for freedom. While some say they want to "return to the Constitution" and see a proper role for a limited federal government on the basis of it being an ultimate guarantor of liberty, they nonetheless argue that some constitutional functions (like eminent domain and taxation), violate individual freedom. So which one is it? Is it possible to both support some government laws and not others? On what grounds?

The Constitution is nothing more than a dead letter, a non-binding "social contract" and ultimately a historical artifact that tourists go to see when they visit Mordor, D.C. Indeed, as Keith Preston mentions (in the comments) "the Constitution is what it is: A landmark document in the evolution of political thought and the political charter of the classical American republic that has been de facto overthrown for generations. State's rights went out the window with the Civil War and Reconstruction and the rest of the Constiution [sic] was destroyed over the course of the 20th century. The few strands that remain, like due process and free speech, are now being eradicated as well."

As a blog aficionado, I cringe whenever I read statements such as "we have freedom of speech because of the First Amendment" or "the Second Amendment protects my right to carry guns." Things like that are incredibly contrived. It is already bad enough that they are coming from so-called "libertarians" who, really, should know better. The Constitution, even if we were to accept the notion that it binds us, is just a chain on the feds. It does not give anyone freedom.

The most common argument goes like this: "We would be better off if we returned to the Constitution." Fair enough. We would be, but that's not because the Constitution equals freedom. That statement is only true now because we are living in an era of unbridled sociofascism and thus we would enjoy more liberty if the Federal government were reduced. But that argument, however, cannot ever be used to advance the cause of liberty. It is at best a piece of historical data. Libertarianism aims to be universally valid; it must apply anywhere and any time. Thus, would today's libertarians favor the Constitutional Convention? Would they favor replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution? Surely not, unless the Articles were to be replaced with a Giant Nothing. If the Constitution gave more power to the central government than it had under the Articles – and it did – then libertarians should have opposed it then (and some did) as they should today.

Libertarians must refrain from positivism, empiricism and historicism. They shall succumb intellectually otherwise. The philosophy of non-aggression is not favored because it would promote any particular outcome. Aggression is simply not justified. Anyone who does not agree with that is either confused or a criminal, or both. It is not a vice to desire, say, the total elimination of murder, nor is it a virtue to favor moderation in murder. But to say that a particular government law should be followed because it gives us freedom, is erroneous and flawed.

That a law can be used to enforce restrictions on government abuses is one thing. (Even then, the imposition of a law on those who do not consent to it is also an act of aggression; it is theft of land and the involuntary inclusion into a group.) But it's something totally different to claim that the law itself can bring about freedom. There is no duty to obey. And that, as Spooner reminds us, is not treason.

April 18, 2006

I will add the following recent post by Stephan Kinsella on the LRC blog (http://lewrockwell.com/blog)

When I started practicing law in 1992 I had framed some nice prints of the Trumbull painting of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence; a facsimile of the Declaration itself; and the famous Rembrandt Peale portrait of Thomas Jefferson. In the years since I’ve become more and more disgusted and cynical about constitutional sentimentalism and have become much more critical of America’s baleful effect on world history and my rosy view of its founding. Contrary to Randian mythology, America was not some minarchist paradise at its founding (and even if it was, minarchism is just another form of statism; see my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist): it was a flawed utopian experiment resulting from an illegal coup d’etat (see my The Institute for Justice on our Munificent Constitution). It was a society that condoned slavery, one of the worst evils ever, while establishing a constructivist new order based on a “rational, scientific” paper document and rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence (which some “libertarian” centralists for some reason support!) (see my When Did the Trouble Start?; Hoppe’s Murray N. Rothbard and the Ethics of Liberty; also my post Supreme Court: Innocence is No Defense; also Manuel Lora, Constitution Worship Undermines the Cause for Freedom).

And while I still admire many things about Jefferson, let’s face it, he was a slaveowner, probably a slave-raper; he violated the Constitution while in office; and he helped foist on the world this utopian experiment that has led to the present state of the world.

So, I can no longer bear to look at these icons in my office, and am giving them away (maybe to Gil Guillory).

Thoughts?

[dr. hfn]

So we should not support or advocate the Constitution? So we shouldn't be Constitutionalists?

[t0rnado]

Saying that the constitution gives us rights wouldn't make any sense because if it were to allow us to do something, it would be called a privilege instead of a right. Rights are inherent and are not given to us by anyone or anything. If you read the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist papers, you'll see that Federalists like Hamilton had a lot of influence in the constitution.

[erowe1]

We shouldn't worship the Constitution. We shouldn't pretend it's always right, or that it shouldn't be improved on, or that it's authoritative to the point of being the ultimate basis for our grievances against the federal government, or that the tyrannical things the federal government does that are constitutional are any less bad just because they're constitutional.

However, when the author writes:


Libertarians err when they use the Constitution to further their philosophy for freedom.

I think he's wrong.

When government officials take oaths to limit their actions in office only to those delegated to them in the Constitution, and then they break those oaths, then we are right to accuse them of breaking their word, and to use the oaths they make as means of arguing against all the unconstitutional things they do. This line of argumentation doesn't impute any ultimate authority to the Constitution itself. Rather it demands accountability of elected officials to their own words, which is a basic ethical principle that we all should be able to agree on. And it may not be a valid argument for the elimination of all tyranny, but it is a valid argument for the elimination of a lot of it.

[powerofreason]

So we should not support or advocate the Constitution? So we shouldn't be Constitutionalists?

Well what do you think? Or do you prefer to have people think for you? Who's "we" anyways?

[LibertyEagle]

I think you are confusing a belief that the form of government that our Founders gave us and the principles upon which this country was founded, are the best that mankind has ever known, with worship of a piece of paper.

Ron Paul's goal was and still is, to reinstate the limited constitutional republic as embodied in our Constitution. If one still shares that goal, we probably believe we have bigger dragons to slay than to run down that same document. For the record though, I agree that no document should be out and out worshiped. Including those written by members of the Mises Institute. :)

[mediahasyou]

people are making a mistake when they call themselves a constitutionalist because that implies that they worship the income tax.

[Dr.3D]

It isn't worship but rather trying to get the federal government to follow the United States Constitution. The constitution worked very well for a great number of years, then slowly, the federal government began neglecting to follow it.

The biggest problem I can see, is that there is no one who can make them obey the constitution. If we are to let them govern as to how the constitution is obeyed, then they will do as they please. Someone has to make them accountable when they break the laws written in the constitution.

[brandon]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

[Optatron]

So does worship of God

[LibertyEagle]

So does worship of God

While you are free to believe whatever you want, this thread is not a Christian-bashing thread. You are free to start a new thread if you wish, but this is not the place for it.

[Dr.3D]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

I'm not a constitution worshiper, but I believe I can answer your question.

I would not oppose a 52 state union if the United States were to remain what it is with the addition of others states. The (NAU) would change the United States into something other than what it is now and not be just adding other states to the union.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

The NAU is not a 52 state union. It involves establishing a supranational ruling body above our own government and thus cedes our sovereignty to an international ruling body.

Do some research on what happened with the other unions that are going on around the world.

[Dr.3D]

The NAU is not a 52 state union. It involves establishing a supranational ruling body above our own government and thus cedes our sovereignty to an international ruling body.

Exactly!

[mediahasyou]

i believe the constitution is nothing more than a legal argument for what the government can do legally.

libertarian principles describe what the government can do morally.

[Dr.3D]

i believe the constitution is nothing more than a legal argument for what the government can do legally.

libertarian principles describe what the government can do morally.

It is more about what the government can not do.

[t0rnado]

The NAU is not a 52 state union. It involves establishing a supranational ruling body above our own government and thus cedes our sovereignty to an international ruling body.

Establishing the United States cedes state sovereignty to a national ruling body.

[powerofreason]

It is more about what the government can not do.

Governments only follow those rules necessary to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people. No other rules apply.

[brandon]

The NAU is not a 52 state union. It involves establishing a supranational ruling body above our own government and thus cedes our sovereignty to an international ruling body.


Ahh, but the constitution established a ruling body above our state governments and thus ceded state sovereignty to a interstate ruling body.

It's pretty much the same thing, just on a slightly larger scale.

[LibForestPaul]

Saying that the constitution gives us rights wouldn't make any sense because if it were to allow us to do something, it would be called a privilege instead of a right. Rights are inherent and are not given to us by anyone or anything. If you read the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist papers, you'll see that Federalists like Hamilton had a lot of influence in the constitution.

How so? Any specifics?

[brandon]

I can just see it now, in 100 years there will be people who praise the NAU's constitution but are strongly against the move to form the American Union which will unite NA with SA.

[mediahasyou]

It is more about what the government can not do.

true, i had that same after thought. i was sticking with the parallelism of the 1st sentence. a true libertarian would be able to acknowledge that gov can do nothing morally like you did.

[Steeleye]

Ahh, but the constitution established a ruling body above our state governments and thus ceded state sovereignty to a interstate ruling body.

It's pretty much the same thing, just on a slightly larger scale.

No it's not. The United States was a voluntary federation established for the mutual benefit of the states in regards to regulation of commerce, diplomatic affairs, and waging defensive wars.

[Theocrat]

There are some on this forum with a disturbingly mindless love of the Constitution. The Constitution does describe a superior form of government to the one we are currently enslaved under, that is for sure. But I think some on this forum could benefit from reading the following article.


I will add the following recent post by Stephan Kinsella on the LRC blog (http://lewrockwell.com/blog)


Thoughts?

No Constitutionalist worships the Constitution. We value it because it restrains the jurisdiction of our federal government by giving it necessary but enumerated powers.

[powerofreason]

I would like to reiterate the point made by Stephan Kinsella that modern democracy as first established by the Constitution is responsible for "...rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence..."

I wonder how much longer the evils of democracy could have been held off for if the US went the way of monarchy? Maybe it never would have really caught on without the Constitution. That would make it quite an abhorrent document. Imagine if all those evils of the 20th century never took place. Imagine what a better place the world would be.

[brandon]

No it's not. The United States was a voluntary federation established for the mutual benefit of the states in regards to regulation of commerce, diplomatic affairs, and waging defensive wars.

The constitution was a secretive power grab which illegally overthrew the articles of confederation and established a strong federal government. Shortly after the constitution was in place the federal government started rolling out statist authoritarian laws, such as the alien and sedition act. It's just gotten worse since.

[mediahasyou]

I can just see it now, in 100 years there will be people who praise the NAU's constitution but are strongly against the move to form the American Union which will unite NA with SA.

thank you prophet yates. im sure history channel will have specials on your nostradamus-like skills in 100 years also.

[brandon]

thank you prophet yates. im sure history channel will have specials on your nostradamus-like skills in 100 years also.

lmao :D

[LibertyEagle]

Ahh, but the constitution established a ruling body above our state governments and thus ceded state sovereignty to a interstate ruling body.

It's pretty much the same thing.

Not really. The original intent was that a state could secede from the union anytime they decided that the union was not in their best interest. What's more, the states were the ones in control. Unfortunately, We the dumbass People, allowed for these checks and balances to be chipped away, until we found ourselves in the predicament we are now in.

No, the problem is not our Constitution; it is the fact that our government is not following it. Would you really rather throw it out and take a chance that whatever document that some NAU parliament put together would be better?

The people in the European Union took that chance and now, they are trying to figure out how the hell to get out of it. They were also told that a EU Constitution would not be created. Guess what? They lied.

Are you so sure you want to throw out the one good thing we have in our favor and just take a chance that the powers that be will put together something much more to your liking. Something that we can all just sing kumbaya?

[LibertyEagle]

It is more about what the government can not do.

Exactly.

[powerofreason]

No Constitutionalist worships the Constitution. We value it because it restrains the jurisdiction of our federal government by giving it necessary but enumerated powers.

Restrains the federal government? You can't be serious! The federal government is not restrained. At all. And returning to enforcement of the Constitution, if such a thing were ever possible would just move the timer back, so to speak, until tyranny was once again the norm. Governments have a natural tendency to become more tyrannical over time because of their monopolistic nature. They only follow the rules necessary for maintaining legitimacy. Which become less and less over time as the people get used to the creeping tyrannical norm.

[t0rnado]

No it's not. The United States was a voluntary federation established for the mutual benefit of the states in regards to regulation of commerce, diplomatic affairs, and waging defensive wars.

All of that applies to the EU as well as to the NAU. Mexico, Canada, and the US would benefit in regards to the regulation of commerce, etc.


How so? Any specifics?

Actually, all the Federalist papers were in support of the Constitution, while the anti-Federalist papers were against the Constitution. Specifically, Federalist Paper #30, which was written by Alexander Hamilton, proposed a national tax.

[powerofreason]

Either the Constitution is responsible for our current situation today or has failed to stop it, I might point out.

[SimpleName]

This is basically what separates real libertarians and everyone else. "Real" (always w/the quotes) libertarians use the Constitution as a goal while many others use it as the end all. I think the authors are a little extreme in their "Constitution worship" calls, but I too am a bit frustrated with people who act like the Constitution IS true liberty. Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Chuck Baldwin, Jesse Ventura, and of course Judge Napolitano (I still love the guy) all submit to this ridiculous idea that the Constitution is above liberty itself despite claiming to be libertarian. I think this clinging fuels the progressive's fire. They say it is outdated, it is inefficient, and frequently insist that the Founders didn't know the world we live in today. That's why they so blatantly ignore it...they simply don't care what the Founders wanted because to them it can't work anymore.

[heavenlyboy34]

thank you prophet yates. im sure history channel will have specials on your nostradamus-like skills in 100 years also.

lolz... it will probably be in Chinese too! ;):D

[Theocrat]

Restrains the federal government? You can't be serious! The federal government is not restrained. At all. And returning to enforcement of the Constitution, if such a thing were ever possible would just move the timer back, so to speak, until tyranny was once again the norm. Governments have a natural tendency to become more tyrannical over time because of their monopolistic nature. They only follow the rules necessary for maintaining legitimacy. Which become less and less over time as the people get used to the creeping tyrannical norm.

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.

Not that we've cleared that up, let me just add that our current federal government is behaving in accordance with the principles which you hold dear--anarchy. It is not submissive to any final government or law (i.e. its constituents and the Constitution), it makes its own rules without the intrusion of an outside authority, and it does as it pleases without restraint, whether it takes property from citizens or grants rights to others that it feels deserves rights.

[t0rnado]

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.

Not that we've cleared that up, let me just add that our current federal government is behaving in accordance with the principles which you hold dear--anarchy. It is not submissive to any final government or law (i.e. its constituents and the Constitution), it makes its own rules without the intrusion of an outside authority, and it does as it pleases without restraint, whether it takes property from citizens or grants rights to others that it feels deserves rights.

Can you define the word anarchy?

[Theocrat]

Do you own a dictionary or are you just ignorant? If you can't separate tyranny from anarchy, you're an idiot.

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

[Vessol]

Can you define the word anarchy?

In his mind: Non-Christian Moral Decay

[South Park Fan]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

You can't be serious. Anarcho-capitalism is merely self-government taken to its logical conclusion. If one has the right to self-government, then logically he has the right to choose not to be governed.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

Theo, this is so wrong, it's just laughable. :D Thank you for entertaining me with your blatant foolishness! You're like a simple caricature of a person-incapable of understanding a concept that has been explained to you numerous times by numerous members (and backed by voluminous literature). I wonder how long it took you to learn to sound so consistently foolish? :confused::) You almost put GWB to shame! lolz!

[puppetmaster]

Either the Constitution is responsible for our current situation today or has failed to stop it, I might point out.


The constitution is a document. Only man can choose to use it or ignore it. Only man can deface it or defend it. I choose to defend it.

The problem is not in the constitution, The current problem rests solely on the back of Americans. America has allowed this to happen with the lack of resilience in supporting this document..

[t0rnado]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

Anarchy is tyranny? Right and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

The form of anarchy that includes no government. You can have a libertarian society without government. If foreign countries threaten you, then you can go fight them, but you can't force others to pay for your battles. Justice would be determined by the owner of the property on which a "crime" was committed. That's self-governance and self-responsibility. If you need the government to help solve your problems, then you're condoning tyranny. Once you use force to decide what is and isn't "good" for society, you promote authoritarianism.

[Theocrat]

You can't be serious. Anarcho-capitalism is merely self-government taken to its logical conclusion. If one has the right to self-government, then logically he has the right to choose not to be governed.

Tell me once again what force is imposed to those who do not choose to be self-governed in anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism only deals with production of goods and services in society (without governmental influence), not changing the sinful hearts of wicked men.

[CCTelander]

No Constitutionalist worships the Constitution. We value it because it restrains the jurisdiction of our federal government by giving it necessary but enumerated powers.

Exactly how has the constitution restrained the federal government? Seems to me that it hasn't been able to restrain much of anything. Which makes perfect sense in reality, since ink on paper aren't really capable of doing much of anything.

[CCTelander]

the constitution was a secretive power grab which illegally overthrew the articles of confederation and established a strong federal government. Shortly after the constitution was in place the federal government started rolling out statist authoritarian laws, such as the alien and sedition act. It's just gotten worse since.

qft

[South Park Fan]

Tell me once again what force is imposed to those who do not choose to be self-governed in anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism only deals with production of goods and services in society (without governmental influence), not changing the sinful hearts of wicked men.

If people choose not to be self-governed, that is their choice. However, they have no right to make that choice for others. (BTW, nice to see that you backtracked on anarchy infringing on self-government, since you are now arguing that people might not like self-government)

[Theocrat]

Exactly how has the constitution restrained the federal government? Seems to me that it hasn't been able to restrain much of anything. Which makes perfect sense in reality, since ink on paper aren't really capable of doing much of anything.

Your sentiments above go back to what I've said about the importance of human hearts being the focus of our failure, not the institution of the civil government itself. Blaming the Constitution on the failures of our country is like blaming spoons for obese people being fat.

[BillyDkid]

It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views. Without the rule of law we have no basis for a civilized existence. I'm not talking about "law and order". I am talking about government that is constrained by the law and for us the Constitution is the law of the land. Without that all you have is expediency and the will of those in power.

[CCTelander]

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.


No, the problem IS "the institution of government." Always has been, always will be. Giving certain people, no matter how "good" or "righteous" they may be, power over other people NEVER works out well for those other people.



Not that we've cleared that up, let me just add that our current federal government is behaving in accordance with the principles which you hold dear--anarchy. It is not submissive to any final government or law (i.e. its constituents and the Constitution), it makes its own rules without the intrusion of an outside authority, and it does as it pleases without restraint, whether it takes property from citizens or grants rights to others that it feels deserves rights.

No, all levels of government are acting EXACTLY the way governments always act. Not in accordance with any principles of anarchy, but simply like the gang of thugs writ large that they actually are.

[Theocrat]

If people choose not to be self-governed, that is their choice. However, they have no right to make that choice for others. (BTW, nice to see that you backtracked on anarchy infringing on self-government, since you are now arguing that people might not like self-government)

Anarchy is not going to stop people who themselves refuse to be self-governed from governing the lives of others, even without their permission. You say they have no right to do that, but so what? That is simply your opinion, and it's not going to stop a mob in anarchy from taking over the health and wealth of other people if their lusts and greed lead them to do so.

I only use self-government as a thorn in the flesh of anarchy apologists because it shows how anarchy provides no means of making self-government a necessary ethic for the freedom of any society. Anarchy only leaves each man to do that which is right in his own eyes. There is no self-government in that.

[CCTelander]

You're an idiot if you can't see that anarchy is tyranny. Also, which form of anarchy are you advocating? Anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-collectivism? Anarcho-communism? Anarcho-syndicalism? You make it seem like anarchy in and of itself is a given for the good of society, but there are many different strands of anarchy. All of them undermine self-government, the prohibition of foreign threats, and justice, among other things.

Theo, this is so wrong, it's just laughable. :D Thank you for entertaining me with your blatant foolishness! You're like a simple caricature of a person-incapable of understanding a concept that has been explained to you numerous times by numerous members (and backed by voluminous literature). I wonder how long it took you to learn to sound so consistently foolish? :confused::) You almost put GWB to shame! lolz!

Sorry HB34 but I have to disagree with you here. Theo can at least construct a sentence that can be read and understood, no matter how wrong its contents actually are. He's a cut or two above GWB in that regard, at least as far as I've seen.

As for his inability to understand the concept of anarcho-capitalism, well, you're pretty much right on in that regard.

[South Park Fan]

Your sentiments above go back to what I've said about the importance of human hearts being the focus of our failure, not the institution of the civil government itself. Blaming the Constitution on the failures of our country is like blaming spoons for obese people being fat.

Well, as someone else in this thread already said, either the Constitution permits all of the abuses we have today or it has no power to stop it. Either way, it's useless.

Civil government is the problem, because even if one focuses merely on the utilitarian aspect of it, most good people will go into respectable professions in the market, so this leaves most of the bad people to go into politics, thus insuring the perpetual growth of government. If one gets rid of civil government, then the problem goes away, and bad people are forced to either change their ways or live in poverty.

[South Park Fan]

Anarchy is not going to stop people who themselves refuse to be self-governed from governing the lives of others, even without their permission. You say they have no right to do that, but so what? That is simply your opinion, and it's not going to stop a mob in anarchy from taking over the health and wealth of other people if their lusts and greed lead them to do so.

And the government hasn't taken over the health and wealth of people now? Basically, even your worst-case scenario for anarcho-capitalism is essentially no different than having a government. Thus, we have nothing to lose by advocating it.


I only use self-government as a thorn in the flesh of anarchy apologists because it shows how anarchy provides no means of making self-government a necessary ethic for the freedom of any society. Anarchy only leaves each man to do that which is right in his own eyes. There is no self-government in that.


So, establishing a coercive monopoly over certain services IS the path to self-government?

[Theocrat]

Well, as someone else in this thread already said, either the Constitution permits all of the abuses we have today or it has no power to stop it. Either way, it's useless.

Civil government is the problem, because even if one focuses merely on the utilitarian aspect of it, most good people will go into respectable professions in the market, so this leaves most of the bad people to go into politics, thus insuring the perpetual growth of government. If one gets rid of civil government, then the problem goes away, and bad people are forced to either change their ways or live in poverty.


It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views. Without the rule of law we have no basis for a civilized existence. I'm not talking about "law and order". I am talking about government that is constrained by the law and for us the Constitution is the law of the land. Without that all you have is expediency and the will of those in power.

That sums up what your post left out, South Park Fan.

[Theocrat]

And the government hasn't taken over the health and wealth of people now? Basically, even your worst-case scenario for anarcho-capitalism is essentially no different than having a government. Thus, we have nothing to lose by advocating it.

It has done those things, but that is because the individuals who are involved in the seats of government do not understand the limits of their Constitutional authority. Once again, it's not the government that is at fault here. It's the people. If it really were the fault of government itself, then there would be no Ron Paul in Congress.


So, establishing a coercive monopoly over certain services IS the path to self-government?

I reject the term "coercive monopoly" because it presupposes that civil government is no different an entity than a market household or firm. I do not believe that.

Self-government is necessary to good government, not the other way around. Because there will always be men who live by the sinful lusts of their hearts, we will always need civil governments. Period. To remove that civil judicial restraint (as in an anarchy) is to allow sinful megalomaniacs in a society free reign to exploit the masses by their own desires and intents, whether it's by market forces or not.

[South Park Fan]

It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men.

Anarcho-capitalists are not opposed to the rule of law. We just oppose the monopolization of law. In fact, having a state, which by its very existance is above the law, is a perversion of the rule of law. Only by having laws apply to everyone can you have the rule of law.


It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views.

How can there by rule based on principle when the state is permitted to steal but individuals are not? That sounds pretty arbitrary to me.


I am talking about government that is constrained by the law and for us the Constitution is the law of the land. Without that all you have is expediency and the will of those in power.
.

Obviously anyone who's looked at American history for the past 200 years can see that the Constitution hasn't done anything to constrain the government, since they just ignore it. The only way to effectively constrain government in the long-term is to abolish it.

[South Park Fan]

It has done those things, but that is because the individuals who are involved in the seats of government do not understand the limits of their Constitutional authority. Once again, it's not the government that is at fault here. It's the people. If it really were the fault of government itself, then there would be no Ron Paul in Congress.

Ron Paul is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Considering that 99.8% of the House of Reps and 100% of the Senate are statists, I think it is time to examine the reasons for that. I do not believe that individuals in government don't understand their limits, but just choose to ignore them, since they face no punishment for doing so.




I reject the term "coercive monopoly" because it presupposes that civil government is no different an entity than a market household or firm. I do not believe that.

Why should government be analyzed less critically than any other institution?


Self-government is necessary to good government, not the other way around. Because there will always be men who live by the sinful lusts of their hearts, we will always need civil governments.

Those that "live by the sinful lusts of their hearts" tend to be the ones that enter politics, and as we've seen, they don't obey the social contract.


To remove that civil judicial restraint (as in an anarchy) is to allow sinful megalomaniacs in a society free reign to exploit the masses by their own desires and intents, whether it's by market forces or not.

Again, sinful megalomaniacs tend to be more attracted to politics than any market profession. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't eliminate but increases the civil judicial restraints by allowing competition in that field.

[carla8478]

As I have looked through this thread I have become exhausted. I have also observed that there is much work to be done. I have seen many arguments with much articulation and extended vocabulary words. Arguments in which many of the authors attempt to portray themselves as experts.

Well, I do not claim to be an expert, but I do know this. Before making an argument you must know your subject. You must have knowledge of principles to base your argument upon. Read and study the constitution, read the Federalist Papers, study the history that brought about our form of government. Then, when you can come from a position of in depth knowledge, then present your argument.

For example I saw one post espousing the evils of democracy and how maybe our Founding Fathers should have just decided to keep a monarchy. Just for whoever wrote that, the Founding Fathers established a republic, not a democracy. One of our problems has been that very few people today realize we were suppose to have a republic. Acting as a democracy is causing some of our problems. But the Founding Fathers did not set it up this way. They are not to blame for this.

[Brian4Liberty]

It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views. Without the rule of law we have no basis for a civilized existence. I'm not talking about "law and order". I am talking about government that is constrained by the law and for us the Constitution is the law of the land. Without that all you have is expediency and the will of those in power.

+1776

It took this long for the rule of law to come up...

[Theocrat]

Ron Paul is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Considering that 99.8% of the House of Reps and 100% of the Senate are statists, I think it is time to examine the reasons for that. I do not believe that individuals in government don't understand their limits, but just choose to ignore them, since they face no punishment for doing so.

I agree. Congressman Paul is the exception in Congress. He is the only federal legislator who understands the proper role of civil government in our country. That is the whole point of my argument. If we had more Ron Pauls in our federal government, we would have a pretty good federal government.


Why should government be analyzed less critically than any other institution?

You're making the assumption that civil government is the same type of institution as a company or firm in a market. They are not the same. The government is not in the business of competing for services. It is a different institution altogether, and it's one that is endowed with executing judgment and justice upon evildoers in society as a ministry of God. Markets are something totally different, being based on competition by means of supply and demand.


Those that "live by the sinful lusts of their hearts" tend to be the ones that enter politics, and as we've seen, they don't obey the social contract.

Granted. However, that only shows that human hearts must be reformed or transformed before a person can rightly be fit for a seat in government. John Adams' quote bears repeating here:

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Again, sinful megalomaniacs tend to be more attracted to politics than any market profession. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't eliminate but increases the civil judicial restraints by allowing competition in that field.

I disagree with that because there are plenty of business owners in government in the past and presently whose hearts are sinfully megalomaniac when it comes to economic issues. Also, justice is not a "market commodity." It is not made valuable based on supply and demand. It is a different kind of service because it deals with objective truths about law, morality, and property which supersede mere market forces.

[powerofreason]

Repeat after me. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. The problem is not the institution of government, but the hearts of the people. However, I do agree with you that a piece of paper is not going to solve our problems alone.


Guess who else believed that?

Vladimir Lenin
Adolf Hitler
Pol-Pot
Chairman Mao
Stalin
Mussolini

They too believed that the people are the problem. Don't blame the victims, blame the oppressors!

[powerofreason]

Civilization comes through private ownership of property. To the extent that property rights are violated civilization breaks down more and more. Government is the NUMBER ONE violator of property rights on the planet. Government = Chaos, Anarchy = best possible situation.

The more government, the less order.

The less government, the more order.

No government = the most possible order under the circumstances.

[Brassmouth]

Guess who else believed that?

Vladimir Lenin
Adolf Hitler
Pol-Pot
Chairman Mao
Stalin
Mussolini

They too believed that the people are the problem. Don't blame the victims, blame the oppressors!

Save your fingers. I made that exact same point to Theo just a week or two ago. The guy doesn't learn, nor does he want to. He refuses to read any literature about the subjects he vehemently opposes. He has shut himself off from reality, and despises the truth.

Honestly, I don't know why he bothers coming here if he hates the truth so much.

[powerofreason]

Every single service that the government "provides" can be, and has been, provided by private individuals and companies. Coercive monopolies on law are an absolute disaster. The government inevitably grants more and more power to itself until there is complete tyranny and control. Minimal government has been tried under the best possible circumstances and has been proven to be a total failure. Its time to move on. There is no minimal government utopia.

[powerofreason]

Save your fingers. I made that exact same point to Theo just a week or two ago. The guy doesn't learn, nor does he want to. He refuses to read any literature about the subjects he vehemently opposes. He has shut himself off from reality, and despises the truth.

Honestly, I don't know why he bothers coming here if he hates the truth so much.

Well, hopefully others can read and learn as well. I know he is a lost cause. Its because he can't reconcile his religion with anarchy (although there are of course Christian anarchists). Thats why he won't entertain thoughts of conversion to the rational consistency of anarcho-capitalism.

[Dr.3D]

Honestly, I don't know why he bothers coming here if he hates the truth so much.

I'm pretty sure he comes here for the same reason I and most of the people on these forums do. We adhere to the ideology of restoring the republic. One can not have a constitutional republic unless there is a constitution.

[Brassmouth]

Well, hopefully others can read and learn as well. I know he is a lost cause. Its because he can't reconcile his religion with anarchy (although there are of course Christian anarchists). Thats why he won't entertain thoughts of conversion to the rational consistency of anarcho-capitalism.

Yes, that's my rationale as well.

[South Park Fan]

I agree. Congressman Paul is the exception in Congress. He is the only federal legislator who understands the proper role of civil government in our country. That is the whole point of my argument. If we had more Ron Pauls in our federal government, we would have a pretty good federal government.

And if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon.




You're making the assumption that civil government is the same type of institution as a company or firm in a market. They are not the same. The government is not in the business of competing for services. It is a different institution altogether, and it's one that is endowed with executing judgment and justice upon evildoers in society as a ministry of God. Markets are something totally different, being based on competition by means of supply and demand.

Circular argument.




Granted. However, that only shows that human hearts must be reformed or transformed before a person can rightly be fit for a seat in government. John Adams' quote bears repeating here:

And who is going to enforce that?

[South Park Fan]

Well, hopefully others can read and learn as well. I know he is a lost cause. Its because he can't reconcile his religion with anarchy (although there are of course Christian anarchists). Thats why he won't entertain thoughts of conversion to the rational consistency of anarcho-capitalism.

Agreed. We should remember that we were all minarchists at one point, too.

[Brian4Liberty]

Obviously anyone who's looked at American history for the past 200 years can see that the Constitution hasn't done anything to constrain the government, since they just ignore it. The only way to effectively constrain government in the long-term is to abolish it.

Anyone who has looked at 10,000 years of human history can see that government (or more accurately, organizations of humans) always exists in some form. It's just a matter of size and scale. For the individual, the smaller the better. For the rulers, the larger the better.

[powerofreason]

Anyone who has looked at 10,000 years of human history can see that government (or more accurately, organizations of humans) always exists in some form. It's just a matter of size and scale. For the individual, the smaller the better. For the rulers, the larger the better.

Thats actually not true. There are at least a few solid historical examples of anarchist societies. And even if that weren't true that doesn't give you moral cover to endorse the existence of a monster organization. Even a baby monster organization, which will of course grow up to be a full grown monster one day.

And, I've actually noticed that blaming tyrannical governments on the citizens is like blaming a wife who is beaten constantly for not being able to control her husband. Remember, democracy only provides the ILLUSION of control by the people. Long term, the result is always the same. TYRANNY.

[PaulaGem]

So what would you "worship".... the Magna Carta?

[CCTelander]

Your sentiments above go back to what I've said about the importance of human hearts being the focus of our failure, not the institution of the civil government itself. Blaming the Constitution on the failures of our country is like blaming spoons for obese people being fat.

While I agree that human nature is at the core of the issue, that doesn't let "the institution of government" or the constitution off the hook.

Your own scriptures paint "the institution of government" in a very dismal light. See I Samuel Chapter 8, Verses 4-18 as an example, to wit:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also.

Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

I notice that your bible's God characterizes the desire for a human government as a rejection of his authority. Furthermore, while I've read the bible numerous times, I can't recall a single instance wherein God or Christ EVER characterized human government in a favorable manner.

Seems to me, as a Christian, you ought to OPPOSE human government, not embrace it.

As to the constitution, its adoption amounted to little more than a Federalist coup d'etat. While the Federalists didn't get everything they wanted, they certainly got enough to make the constitution a charter for virtually unlimited government. Why so many who claim to love liberty support it is beyond me. Maybe they've never actually read it?

[CCTelander]

It ain't about Constitution worship. It's about the principle of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. It is about rule based on principle rather than arbitrary views. Without the rule of law we have no basis for a civilized existence. I'm not talking about "law and order". I am talking about government that is constrained by the law and for us the Constitution is the law of the land. Without that all you have is expediency and the will of those in power.

"The rule of law" is the usual rallying cry of authoritarians. Law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun behind it, at least whenever coercive government of any kind is involved.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're awesome, CCT! You're like the "anti-Theocrat" of RPFs! :D:cool::)~hugs~

I wish there were more like you here. :cool:
While I agree that human nature is at the core of the issue, that doesn't let "the institution of government" or the constitution off the hook.

Your own scriptures paint "the institution of government" in a very dismal light. See I Samuel Chapter 8, Verses 4-18 as an example, to wit:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day; with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods; so they are doing to you also.

Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

I notice that your bible's God characterizes the desire for a human government as a rejection of his authority. Furthermore, while I've read the bible numerous times, I can't recall a single instance wherein God or Christ EVER characterized human government in a favorable manner.

Seems to me, as a Christian, you ought to OPPOSE human government, not embrace it.

As to the constitution, its adoption amounted to little more than a Federalist coup d'etat. While the Federalists didn't get everything they wanted, they certainly got enough to make the constitution a charter for virtually unlimited government. Why so many who claim to love liberty support it is beyond me. Maybe they've never actually read it?

[CCTelander]

You're awesome, CCT! You're like the "anti-Theocrat" of RPFs! :D:cool::)~hugs~

I wish there were more like you here. :cool:

Hey, thanks! I do what I can!

I actually understand, I think, where Theo is at. I was raised in a fundamentalist home and had a lot of the same hang-ups with anarcho-capitalism that many of the minarchists here seem to have. Eventually though I got better!

[nobody's_hero]

Thomas Jefferson: A Simple and Inexpensive Government


During the summer of 1800, the Republicans gathered their forces in an attempt to obtain the presidency for Thomas Jefferson. Though Jefferson did not campaign in the modern sense of the term, he did write many letters to friends and to newspaper editors, defending himself against the attacks of the Federalists. When Gideon Granger of Connecticut wrote to him that there would be some support for the Republican cause in that Federalist stronghold, Jefferson's reply of August 13, 1800, restated the main points of his political creed. In the portion of the letter reprinted here, he stressed his belief in strong state governments and in a weak federal government. In his understanding of the Constitution, "a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants" summed up the only way to avoid the distortion the document had undergone at the hands of Washington and Adams.

I received with great pleasure your favor of June 4, and am much comforted by the appearance of a change of opinion in your state; for though we may obtain, and I believe shall obtain, a majority in the legislature of the United States, attached to the preservation of the federal Constitution, according to its obvious principles and those on which it was known to be received; attached equally to the preservation to the states of those rights unquestionably remaining with them; friends to the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, and to economical government; opposed to standing armies, paper systems, war, and all connection, other than commerce, with any foreign nation; in short, a majority firm in all those principles which we have espoused, and the Federalists have opposed uniformly, still, should the whole body of New England continue in opposition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious and solid while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchise that.

Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants, at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. And I do verily believe that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being in force in the United States (which principle possesses the general government at once of all the powers of the state governments, and reduces us to a single consolidated government), it would become the most corrupt government on the earth. You have seen the practices by which the public servants have been able to cover their conduct, or, where that could not be done, delusions by which they have varnished it for the eye of their constituents. What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office building, and office hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the general government!

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one--a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. But, I repeat that this simple and economical mode of government can never be secured if the New England States continue to support the contrary system. I rejoice, therefore, in every appearance of their returning to those principles which I had always imagined to be almost innate in them.

In this state, a few persons were deluded by the X. Y. Z. duperies. You saw the effect of it in our last congressional representatives, chosen under their influence. This experiment on their credulity is now seen into, and our next representation will be as republican as it has heretofore been. On the whole, we hope that, by a part of the Union having held on to the principles of the Constitution, time has been given to the states to recover from the temporary frenzy into which they had been decoyed, to rally round the Constitution, and to rescue it from the destruction with which it had been threatened even at their own hands. [emphasis mine]

http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116899




"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802.

[Objectivist]

Ideas are bulletproof and I'll wear that vest.

[Cowlesy]

Everyone take a deep breath....

Read this...
+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to relational which often result in disruption, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

and continue.

Signed,
The Referee

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

. . .
Everyone take a deep breath....

and continue.

Signed,
The Referee

Great segue.
I am going to compare the Constitution and its origin to basketball.
Basketball was invented by a man named James Naismith to tame a group of young men he referred to as "The Incorrigibles."

Naismith decided that a game was needed that would keep them occupied. He looked at the most popular games, what worked, what didn't, and what would be appropriate for the circumstances.

He decided that the game needed a ball as all of the most popular games used one. He decided it would have to be a passing game because running with a ball would encourage tackling. He was afraid that having a goal or something to throw the ball at would encourage violent trajectories, so he opted for the raised basket to encourage gentle skillful tosses.

That was about it. Beyond that, there really were no set rules. As the game gained popularity, there were innovations and with them, rule changes. For example, players began to pass the ball to themselves so that they could move down the court while retaining ownership of the ball, while others began to bounce (dribble) the ball as they moved. The overhead method was rejected in favor of dribbling and a new rule was created--"carrying"

Likewise, the Constitution was created by men who witnesses the problems with previous governments for their specific needs. The original "rules" were intentionally sparse and dealt mainly with the philosophical needs of a successful government rather than specifics (with the exception of the physical makeup of the government) in order to accommodate for changing specific needs.

As with basketball rules, the Constitution must be followed in order to find out if there are any areas that need improvement. If the Incorrigibles had run around with total disregard for Naismith's original rules, basketball would have been universally reviled as a tremendous flop.

We "Constitution worshipers" just don't like the idea of changing the rules before we even experience the situation as the rulebook intends.

I actually can't stand basketball. I would rather watch two men fish. Really, I'd prefer to watch two women fish . . .

[TGGRV]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

[powerofreason]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

Not if one is principled.

[foofighter20x]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

1. Because if there were going to be an NAU, then Canada and Mexico would need to be formally admitted. The current concept of such a union requires no such integration, but would aim to establish it solely by treaty (which is not a formal admission.

2. There are inherent cultural differences between all three societies that would work to undermine our American institutions.

[heavenlyboy34]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

Rothbard (Mr libertarian) disagrees with you. ;)

[misterx]

We shouldn't worship the Constitution. We shouldn't pretend it's always right, or that it shouldn't be improved on, or that it's authoritative to the point of being the ultimate basis for our grievances against the federal government, or that the tyrannical things the federal government does that are constitutional are any less bad just because they're constitutional.



So this is what we're going to argue about? If you don't like the constitution, and think it should be improved upon, go found your own country and create a system of government more to your liking. The Constitution is the law of the land. This is the document that our country's founders agreed upon, it is not to be ignored, improved upon, or altered in any way except by amendment. To pretend you can do otherwise and still call the country America is disingenuous. What you are talking about is revolution. By "improving" the constitution, you are replacing the government that our founders created. Either you want to restore America to its glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?

[heavenlyboy34]

So this is what we're going to argue about? If you don't like the constitution, and think it should be improved upon, go found your own country and create a system of government more to your liking. The Constitution is the law of the land. This is the document that our country's founders agreed upon, it is not to be ignored, improved upon, or altered in any way except by amendment. To pretend you can do otherwise and still call the country America is disingenuous. What you are talking about is revolution. By "improving" the constitution, you are replacing the government that our founders created. Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that you have the right to tell other people what to do with their property and thoughts because of the Constitution (which in itself goes against Constitutionalist philosophy, which believes that the Constitution restricts what government can do-not what individuals can do).

Plus, you give a false choice when you say "Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?"

I suggest you take a few hours or days to straighten yourself out. ;):)

[South Park Fan]

There's a difference between being a libertarian and an anarchist.

That doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.

[acptulsa]

Plus, you give a false choice when you say "Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?"

I don't see how. Maybe a new country and constitution will lead to future days of glory, maybe it'll be worse than the Soviet constitution. Either way, since he used the word restore, that possibility doesn't make what he said a false choice.

I say it isn't broke, and we don't need to fix it--we just need to go back to using it.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't see how. Maybe a new country and constitution will lead to future days of glory, maybe it'll be worse than the Soviet constitution. Either way, since he used the word restore, that possibility doesn't make what he said a false choice.

I'll explain briefly. There was plenty of glory and freedom before the constitution existed (under the BoR and AoC-and before that, civil anarchism). The Constitution did not create freedom (it already existed). It did lay the groundwork for the leviathan State, which, as we know, came to usurp freedom.

[Minarchy4Sale]

not this shit again.

[Brian4Liberty]

Thats actually not true.


Which part?


And even if that weren't true that doesn't give you moral cover to endorse the existence of a monster organization.

Who's endorsing a monster organization? I think everyone here is against them.

(At least when it's called government. If you call it a corporation or religion, then some here will endorse it turning into a monster). :rolleyes:

[CCTelander]

I don't see how. Maybe a new country and constitution will lead to future days of glory, maybe it'll be worse than the Soviet constitution. Either way, since he used the word restore, that possibility doesn't make what he said a false choice.


It commits the fallacy known as a false premise, since it attempts to limit the possible options to two when there are other options available.



I say it isn't broke, and we don't need to fix it--we just need to go back to using it.

I'd say it IS broke, since it has utterly failed to keep government in check, and that failure began almost before the ink was dry.

[BillyDkid]

"The rule of law" is the usual rallying cry of authoritarians. Law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun behind it, at least whenever coercive government of any kind is involved.


That just isn't true. The rule of law - as oppose to the rule of men - is fundamental to freedom and liberty. The rule of law refers to a government that is constrained by law and not subject to whim of whoever has the guns.

[acptulsa]

I'd say it IS broke, since it has utterly failed to keep government in check, and that failure began almost before the ink was dry.

If its failure were 'utter' then we'd be having this conversation in a FEMA camp. They're trying to burn it incrementally, since they know what'll happen if they deep six it wholesale.

That's not bad at all for a mere piece of paper, I say. Certainly more than one single bullet could ever have accomplished.

[Brian4Liberty]

"The rule of law" is the usual rallying cry of authoritarians. Law is nothing more than an opinion with a gun behind it, at least whenever coercive government of any kind is involved.

Certainly, anyone can claim to be following the rule of law. Let's make it simple: rule of law means that you have some agreed upon rules, and everyone has to follow them. It is understood that some people will violate the rules, and there will also be punishments. This would apply to any group or society, even an "Anarchist" society.


What is "The Rule of Law"?:



In his book The Morality of Law, American legal scholar Lon Fuller identified eight elements of law which have been recognized as necessary for a society aspiring to institute the rule of law. Fuller stated the following:

1. Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials.

2. Laws must be published.

3. Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed.

4. Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement.

5. Law must avoid contradictions.

6. Law must not command the impossible.

7. Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed.

8. Official action should be consistent with the declared rule.

http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml

[misterx]

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that you have the right to tell other people what to do with their property and thoughts because of the Constitution (which in itself goes against Constitutionalist philosophy, which believes that the Constitution restricts what government can do-not what individuals can do).



Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how you get that from what I said.




Plus, you give a false choice when you say "Either you want to restore America to it's glory, or you want a new country and constitution, which is it?"

I suggest you take a few hours or days to straighten yourself out. ;):)

How so? Either you follow the Constitution, ignore the constitution, or change the constitution. There are no other options. Ignoring it would be the status quo, following it would restore America to its former self.(I say glory because that is my view, perhaps this phrase is better since some don't think our constitution is so glorious), or you can replace the constitution with something different or nothing at all.

[CCTelander]

That just isn't true. The rule of law - as oppose to the rule of men - is fundamental to freedom and liberty. The rule of law refers to a government that is constrained by law and not subject to whim of whoever has the guns.

It absolutely is true. Government never remains constrained by law. It makes the laws. Has a monopoly to do so as a matter of fact. As jefferson put it:

"Of Liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its existence, is unobstructed action according to our will. But Rightful Liberty is within limits drawn around us by the Equal Rights of others. And I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because the law is often but the Tyrants-will, and always so when it violates the Rights of an individual." [emphasis mine]

The rule of law is a myth that's never been realized.

What's more, liberty minded people have been attempting to get "good" people elected in order to maintain such a "rule of law" for close to two and a half centuries now here in the US. They've even succeeded in getting their guys elected a remarkable number of times.

In spite of that, the trend has always been toward a bigger, more intrusive government. We now suffer under the largest, most intrusive government that's ever existed on the face of the Earth.

The rule of law doesn't seem to be working out so well.

[misterx]

I'll explain briefly. There was plenty of glory and freedom before the constitution existed (under the BoR and AoC-and before that, civil anarchism). The Constitution did not create freedom (it already existed). It did lay the groundwork for the leviathan State, which, as we know, came to usurp freedom.

Then you want revolution. You want to dismantle the system and replace it with something that you think will work better. A nation's system of law can not just change with the winds, it is the foundation that a nation is built on. It must be steady and unwavering. You can't just pull the cards from the bottom of a house and leave the rest of the deck standing. What you are talking about is building a whole new house. Not something that I necessarily disagree with, but just be honest about it.

[LibertyEagle]

I'll explain briefly. There was plenty of glory and freedom before the constitution existed (under the BoR and AoC-and before that, civil anarchism). The Constitution did not create freedom (it already existed). It did lay the groundwork for the leviathan State, which, as we know, came to usurp freedom.

BULLSHIT.

The Constitution didn't cause what is happening now. Our government isn't even following it. We didn't get here overnight. It happened over decades while We the People sat on our asses and didn't hold our government accountable. We were warned by our Founders that if we did not stay vigilant that our Republic would not last. Well, we didn't.

[TGGRV]

That doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive.

Just like being a socialist or a communist aren't mutually exclusive? They're different political doctrines altogether.

[South Park Fan]

Just like being a socialist or a communist aren't mutually exclusive? They're different political doctrines altogether.

No, libertarians are people who support the non-agression principle, whereas anarchists are people who oppose government. There are some supporters of the non-agression principle who believe in government (minarchists) and there are some opponents of government who oppose the non-agression principle (anarcho-communists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc.). Anarcho-capitalism represents a form of libertarian anarchism, that is, a philosophy that supports the non-agression principle and opposes government.

[South Park Fan]

BULLSHIT.

The Constitution didn't cause what is happening now. Our government isn't even following it. We didn't get here overnight. It happened over decades while We the People sat on our asses and didn't hold our government accountable. We were warned by our Founders that if we did not stay vigilant that our Republic would not last. Well, we didn't.

What is the point of having a Constitution if it is "the People's" role to hold government accountable? You may as well have no Constitution if it doesn't perform its role of restraining government.

[Brassmouth]

What is the point of having a Constitution if it is "the People's" role to hold government accountable? You may as well have no Constitution if it doesn't perform its role of restraining government.

Good point.

A piece of paper can't protect you from the State anymore than it can protect you from an axe-wielding murderer.

[nobody's_hero]

What is the point of having a Constitution if it is "the People's" role to hold government accountable? You may as well have no Constitution if it doesn't perform its role of restraining government.

Allow me to play devil's advocate:

'Anarchy' must be vigilantly enforced by the people as well. As utopian as it is to suggest that a mere piece of paper can restrain the force of government, it is just as utopian to suggest that in the absence of government, there will never emerge someone or some group which seeks to impose its will over others (whereby creating a de facto government, perhaps a form much less suitable to a free society than a constitutional republic).

How would you maintain 'anarchy,' and who would you elect (or whatever anarchists do) to see that it is constantly, dilligently watched over, keeping in mind that most Americans do not want to be bothered to defend their liberties (which is exactly why the Constitutionalists are lagging, and why the Constitution cannot be solely to blame)?

[powerofreason]

I think what some people don't realize is that once the government has collapsed or somehow been eliminated it would be quite difficult indeed for a new one to just "spring up in its place." Governments require legitimacy in order to be able to survive. Where will that legitimacy come from?

Also, a country with no government is much harder to take over (by a foreign power, as that seems to be the fear of some paranoid folks on this forum) than one with a power structure already in place. Think about it. If there is no power structure in place than the entire landmass will have to be conquered house by house. In other words: guerilla warfare. Which is the costliest type of fighting for an invader, in terms of both lives and money. No nation on earth would have the will or resources to somehow "take over" (whatever that would mean) an anarchist america. And were they to try to set up some type of interim government it would absolutely have no legitimacy/respect whatsoever in the eyes of the people.

Anarchy is, in fact, the best defense against foreign invasion. Consider reading Hans Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense for the complete argument against government "protection" from foreign invasion

[BillyDkid]

It absolutely is true. Government never remains constrained by law. It makes the laws. Has a monopoly to do so as a matter of fact. As jefferson put it:

"Of Liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its existence, is unobstructed action according to our will. But Rightful Liberty is within limits drawn around us by the Equal Rights of others. And I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because the law is often but the Tyrants-will, and always so when it violates the Rights of an individual." [emphasis mine]

The rule of law is a myth that's never been realized.

What's more, liberty minded people have been attempting to get "good" people elected in order to maintain such a "rule of law" for close to two and a half centuries now here in the US. They've even succeeded in getting their guys elected a remarkable number of times.

In spite of that, the trend has always been toward a bigger, more intrusive government. We now suffer under the largest, most intrusive government that's ever existed on the face of the Earth.

The rule of law doesn't seem to be working out so well.That doesn't mean that the principle of the rule of law is not the most humane and most rational approach. What exactly is the alternative to the rule of law??? The fact that the US does not live up to the principles outlined in its founding document does not mean that those principles are not sound. The fact that the government breaks the law does not mean that the principle of the rule of law is not valid. There are two alternatives - the rule of law or the rule of men. The founders tried to break away from the rule of men - arbitrary rule - and to some degree they succeeded. Without the rule of law you have no metric by which to determine what is acceptable behavior. Without the rule of law, what is acceptable one day culd get you executed the next. The fact that a system that is based on codefied laws can be abused is not an argument against it. Any system can be abused. The only hope for avoiding abuse as much as possible is to have the rules spelled out. The fact that some don't obey the rules is not an argument for not having rules.

[powerofreason]

That doesn't mean that the principle of the rule of law is not the most humane and most rational approach. What exactly is the alternative to the rule of law???

Glad you asked! Private law is the answer. In order to learn more about this free market cure for coercion I suggest you take a look at The Market For Liberty, by the Tannehills. There are of course many other books you can look at but this one is fairly short and to the point and is a good starting point imo. You can find it free in both audiobook and pdf format at book.freekeene.com (http://www.book.freekeene.com) and I'm sure mises.org hosts it as well.

[paulitics]

I guess you can put me in the "constitution worshiper" camp, whatever that means. Yes, I have more faith in a document to keep politicians in line, than their own morality. It has served as well for 300 years, and is the main reason why this country is so hard to take down. Without the rule of law, some faction or mob, will collude to exploit, pillage, and rape the weak. The constitution is there to protect us against those people.

Oh sure, anarchy might work for a fleeting moment, but some group or faction will collectively
fill that vaccum back up with tyrrany. How many times has there been a revolution, followed by anarchy, followed by tyrrany, or dictatorship. It is almost a given, based on human nature. Anarchy can't sustain itself long. You can't trust all humans to work independently. No, some group will form an alliance, than a gang, than a mob, than a tyrrany and rob the weak or the moral.

This is one of those out of the frying pan into the fire arguments similar to Karl Marx based on fantasy that the grass will be greener if we abolish a system that works relatively well, but has flaws (he ignores the enormous flaws of his own idealism ). And yes, it has worked well when you compare it to 1000s of years of history.

Where has real anarchy lasted for 300 years, and proven itself to work, with the exception of sparsely populated areas where the land and resources are plentiful enough to go around? These relatively unexplored areas, with little technology doesn't count. I'm talking about today's world, the real world.

[powerofreason]

Examples of working private law: The Xeer of Somalia, English maritime courts, dispute resolution in the (not so) wild west, and the mostly private law system of the Icelandic people circa year 1000 if I remember correctly. That system lasted about 300 years before violence broke it down. Compare that to how long it took for the Constitution to fail. Much less time. Note that private law (necessarily) does not prosecute victimless crimes. Public law systems prosecute victimless crimes without a single exception in history. Freedom works!

[RevolutionSD]

I think what some people don't realize is that once the government has collapsed or somehow been eliminated it would be quite difficult indeed for a new one to just "spring up in its place." Governments require legitimacy in order to be able to survive. Where will that legitimacy come from?

Also, a country with no government is much harder to take over (by a foreign power, as that seems to be the fear of some paranoid folks on this forum) than one with a power structure already in place. Think about it. If there is no power structure in place than the entire landmass will have to be conquered house by house. In other words: guerilla warfare. Which is the costliest type of fighting for an invader, in terms of both lives and money. No nation on earth would have the will or resources to somehow "take over" (whatever that would mean) an anarchist america. And were they to try to set up some type of interim government it would absolutely have no legitimacy/respect whatsoever in the eyes of the people.

Anarchy is, in fact, the best defense against foreign invasion. Consider reading Hans Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense for the complete argument against government "protection" from foreign invasion

EXCELLENT post, and this is exactly why anarcho-capitalism is the real freedom while constitutionalism is advocating what we have today.

[acptulsa]

...while constitutionalism is advocating what we have today.

Fail.

You don't chip away at our bulwark for a century straight without doing it some damage. Which is why I'm less free now than I was when I was a kid. I remember constitutionalism. We lost it. If we get it back, you'll like the stuff, I promise.

[powerofreason]

I guess you can put me in the "constitution worshiper" camp, whatever that means. Yes, I have more faith in a document to keep politicians in line, than their own morality. It has served as well for 300 years, and is the main reason why this country is so hard to take down. Without the rule of law, some faction or mob, will collude to exploit, pillage, and rape the weak. The constitution is there to protect us against those people.

Oh sure, anarchy might work for a fleeting moment, but some group or faction will collectively
fill that vaccum back up with tyrrany. How many times has there been a revolution, followed by anarchy, followed by tyrrany, or dictatorship. It is almost a given, based on human nature. Anarchy can't sustain itself long. You can't trust all humans to work independently. No, some group will form an alliance, than a gang, than a mob, than a tyrrany and rob the weak or the moral.

This is one of those out of the frying pan into the fire arguments similar to Karl Marx based on fantasy that the grass will be greener if we abolish a system that works relatively well, but has flaws (he ignores the enormous flaws of his own idealism ). And yes, it has worked well when you compare it to 1000s of years of history.

Where has real anarchy lasted for 300 years, and proven itself to work, with the exception of sparsely populated areas where the land and resources are plentiful enough to go around? These relatively unexplored areas, with little technology doesn't count. I'm talking about today's world, the real world.

The Constitution spelled the death of freedom because it established "a constructivist new order based on a “rational, scientific” paper document and rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence." (Kinsella)

[powerofreason]

Fail.

Government, no matter how small or innocent looking it starts out to be, inevitably becomes large and tyrannical. Can't argue against history. And you better not respond by blaming the victims of coercion (the people). It is in the very nature of a coercive monopoly to expand its scope and power. The problem lies within the system, not within the people!

[RevolutionSD]

I guess you can put me in the "constitution worshiper" camp, whatever that means. Yes, I have more faith in a document to keep politicians in line, than their own morality. It has served as well for 300 years, and is the main reason why this country is so hard to take down. Without the rule of law, some faction or mob, will collude to exploit, pillage, and rape the weak. The constitution is there to protect us against those people.

Oh sure, anarchy might work for a fleeting moment, but some group or faction will collectively
fill that vaccum back up with tyrrany. How many times has there been a revolution, followed by anarchy, followed by tyrrany, or dictatorship. It is almost a given, based on human nature. Anarchy can't sustain itself long. You can't trust all humans to work independently. No, some group will form an alliance, than a gang, than a mob, than a tyrrany and rob the weak or the moral.

This is one of those out of the frying pan into the fire arguments similar to Karl Marx based on fantasy that the grass will be greener if we abolish a system that works relatively well, but has flaws (he ignores the enormous flaws of his own idealism ). And yes, it has worked well when you compare it to 1000s of years of history.

Where has real anarchy lasted for 300 years, and proven itself to work, with the exception of sparsely populated areas where the land and resources are plentiful enough to go around? These relatively unexplored areas, with little technology doesn't count. I'm talking about today's world, the real world.

Anarchy already works. There's anarchy when you drive your car. Sure there are cops on the road but you have to trust your fellow drivers are going to do the right thing. Countless other areas of your life are examples of anarchy.

Anarchy or voluntaryism is NOT a fleeting moment thing. There would be no vacuum to fill if we had no government. That's what I think you and a lot of the other constitutionalists/minarchists aren't understanding. No government means not allowing one group the power over the rest of us.

Besides going house to house, without a government it would be very difficult for any group to "take over".

On the other hand, even if we somehow elected hundreds of libertarians to office, small government would quickly slip back into big government as soon as the first politician makes promises on what he will "get" for his constituents.

Anarchy/voluntaryism is changing a mindset. Of course it's not an easy route, but if we do not change mindsets, we are going to have to live in this crappy socialist system for the rest of our lives.

[acptulsa]

The Constitution spelled the death of freedom because it established "a constructivist new order based on a “rational, scientific” paper document and rejecting traditional, superior, unwritten, monarchist limits on state power, thus setting the world on the path of democracy and democratic tyranny, and all the evils of the 20th Century–WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Cold War, Communism, Naziism, Fascism, Great Depressions I and II–not to mention the illegal, immoral, murderous, centralizing War to Prevent Southern Independence." (Kinsella)

Not only a fail, but a severe run-on fail. A constructivist new order which denies the government the "right" monarchs always took for granted--the right to execute people without due process--is not something that 'removed traditional limits' but something that set new ones.


Government, no matter how small or innocent looking it starts out to be, inevitably becomes large and tyrannical. Can't argue against history. And you better not respond by blaming the victims of coercion (the people). It is in the very nature of a coercive monopoly to expand its scope and power. The problem lies within the system, not within the people!

Strike three, yer out! People are pack animals. Everyone wants to be part of a winning team. Take away their teams and they'll form new ones, and they're sure to select someone as 'captain' of the team.

Take away the institutionalized prohibitions on the majority tyrannizing the minority and they'll do that, too. Hell, they're doing it to individuals right now. It's the driving force behind government 'inevitably' becoming large and tyrannical. Start from scratch and there are less restrictions on how powerful this 'captain' can become.

[paulitics]

I think what some people don't realize is that once the government has collapsed or somehow been eliminated it would be quite difficult indeed for a new one to just "spring up in its place." Governments require legitimacy in order to be able to survive. Where will that legitimacy come from?

Also, a country with no government is much harder to take over (by a foreign power, as that seems to be the fear of some paranoid folks on this forum) than one with a power structure already in place. Think about it. If there is no power structure in place than the entire landmass will have to be conquered house by house. In other words: guerilla warfare. Which is the costliest type of fighting for an invader, in terms of both lives and money. No nation on earth would have the will or resources to somehow "take over" (whatever that would mean) an anarchist america. And were they to try to set up some type of interim government it would absolutely have no legitimacy/respect whatsoever in the eyes of the people.

Anarchy is, in fact, the best defense against foreign invasion. Consider reading Hans Hoppe's The Myth of National Defense for the complete argument against government "protection" from foreign invasion

It took 300 years for this mess we are in. I don't think this lurking tyrrany just sprang up out of nowhere. It took generations of colluding, maniplauting, and the moral destruction of the people. Our founding fathers predicted this would happen, esp if the people became too lazy to work for freedom. This is what brought us here, not the flaws of the constitution, but the flaws of man.

Under your system, the flaws of man will still exist , and the vaccum would very soon be filled by the immoral and greedy who would gain enough power to exploit the weak and the moral. With today's technology, I would bet on it being less than 300 days than 300 years for tyrrany to take over.

[powerofreason]

Not only a fail, but a severe run-on fail. A constructivist new order which denies the government the "right" monarchs always took for granted--the right to execute people without due process--is not something that 'removed traditional limits' but something that set new ones.

... That failed miserably.


Take away the institutionalized prohibitions on the majority tyrannizing the minority and they'll do that, too. Hell, they're doing it to individuals right now. It's the driving force behind government 'inevitably' becoming large and tyrannical. Start from scratch and there are less restrictions on how powerful this 'captain' can become.

The only thing restricting the State is its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. No written rule can restrain the State for long. Constitution or no Constitution, there are things the State simply would not be able to get away with today. Even if a group of old wealthy people got together in a room and outlined a tyrannical government on paper and signed their names to it. Words on paper don't restrict the state or empower it to do anything. The State will always get away with the maximum it can get away with. Its in the nature of the State, and once again, if one examines history this becomes quite evident.

If every American suddenly adopted the mindset of the average North Korean citizen there would probably be soldiers on the streets in no time at all. Why? Because the government would know they could get away with it. No protests, no problems.

[powerofreason]

It took 300 years for this mess we are in. I don't think this lurking tyrrany just sprang up out of nowhere. It took generations of colluding, maniplauting, and the moral destruction of the people. Our founding fathers predicted this would happen, esp if the people became too lazy to work for freedom. This is what brought us here, not the flaws of the constitution, but the flaws of man.

Under your system, the flaws of man will still exist , and the vaccum would very soon be filled by the immoral and greedy who would gain enough power to exploit the weak and the moral. With today's technology, I would bet on it being less than 300 days than 300 years for tyrrany to take over.

You're blaming the victims again.

If people are so flawed as you say, why provide those flawed, immoral, greedy people with a coercive government to rule over us all with?

And you're obviously not familiar with successful anarchist societies of history. Such as medieval Ireland. Guess what ended their anarchy? Was it a random gang of thieves? Nope. It was England. They conquered pretty much every square inch of the country and imposed their will on the people. If Ireland had a government army it would have been a much easier fight for the English.

This theory:


Under your system, the flaws of man will still exist , and the vaccum would very soon be filled by the immoral and greedy who would gain enough power to exploit the weak and the moral. With today's technology, I would bet on it being less than 300 days than 300 years for tyrrany to take over.

Does not jibe with history.

Want another example of anarchy being ruined by foreign governments? Look at Somalia. And I should point out that despite the combined best efforts of the most powerful nation on earth and the U.N. that respect for the Somalian transitional government is still quite weak. The problem isn't "warlords". Just government goons.

[acptulsa]

The only thing restricting the State is its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. No written rule can restrain the State for long. Constitution or no Constitution, there are things the State simply would not be able to get away with today.

There are things the state wants to get away with today, and can't, not because the Constitution forbids them but because people know they're unconstitutional. Would the state be able to get away with them if we weren't at least dimly aware of our Constitutional heritage and protections? I can't answer that, and unless you're God you can't either. This isn't a double-blind study with a control group, it's just life.

You're trying to run on conventional wisdom and instinct here, and it's not working out for you as well as you hope. Conventional wisdom and instinct say put cool water in the ice tray if you want ice faster. Practice says hot water can be the fastest to freeze, because heat transfer has a momentum of its own. That's why I say starting from minimalism that demonifies the state will help you resist tyranny longer than starting from nothing. Starting from nothing you have a tiny bit farther to go to get to tyranny, but it's downhill all the way; with our Constitution it's uphill all the way.

And if you can't, or won't, understand that, there's no point in us doing anything but agreeing to disagree.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm still not sure how you can just as easily maintain anarchism. I'm not talking about immediate, short term anarchism. I'm talking about how you defend against the same creeping tyranny that usurped the Constitution and the natural rights it was intended to defend.

Regardless of which form of government (or lack of) you choose, does it not still hinge upon the people to remain constantly engaged in keeping it civil?

I believe so, and government by any other name (even it if is a private law system) is still an organization which seeks to maintain order. Who would legitimize the private courts? Those who bid the highest? How is that any better than the system we have now in which the people with the connections make the rules?

[powerofreason]

There are things the state wants to get away with today, and can't, not because the Constitution forbids them but because people know they're unconstitutional.

I don't believe that to be true. I think people don't want troops on the streets because they know theres something wrong about that, regardless of what the Constitution says. Theres hardly anyone nowadays (besides you people) that believe in abiding by the Constitution just for the sake of it. If the government shredded the bill of rights today, would that change anything? Of course not, because its just a piece of paper. People would still demand free speech. People of course use the bill of rights to justify having certain rights but if it didn't exist people would still demand those rights anyways using different reasoning.

England does not have a written Constitution. And despite having had government in that country well before there was government in America they aren't really doing too bad relative to us. They're only a bit farther along the path to complete tyranny/control.

[powerofreason]

Regardless of which form of government (or lack of) you choose, does it not still hinge upon the people to remain constantly engaged in keeping it civil?


Once anarchy has been established history shows that the only thing that can really dislodge the anarchy is a foreign power or perhaps some type of popular domestic movement that led to the anarchy in the first place. In which case the anarchy is just a transitional anarchy.

[mport1]

I'm no fan of the Constitution anymore. A lot of people here really should read the Lysander Spooner's short book, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority - available free online here (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm).

[acptulsa]

People of course use the bill of rights to justify having certain rights but if it didn't exist people would still demand those rights anyways using different reasoning.

You don't know that. But I do know that there's a couple of generations older than you who were actually educated in the Constitution, and if you don't think they'll howl if the government tries to do to them what it does to you kids, you're nuts.


England does not have a written Constitution.

The hell you say. They've been doing the Constitutional Monarchy thing since the Magna Carta, child. That's like three quarters of a millenium. Been sleeping?

[powerofreason]

Coercive government is responsible for so much human suffering and wealth destruction that people will love the private alternatives that will spring forth from the marketplace. There's been no case of anarchy as far as I can tell that was ended by some popular movement by the people. Its always some outsider tyrant/usurper.

[powerofreason]

You don't know that. But I do know that there's a couple of generations older than you who were actually educated in the Constitution, and if you don't think they'll howl if the government tries to do to them what it does to you kids, you're nuts.



The hell you say. They've been doing the Constitutional Monarchy thing since the Magna Carta, child. That's like three quarters of a millenium. Been sleeping?

Where's their constitution? Show me it. Its not written down fool. Its just passed down traditions.

[acptulsa]

Coercive government is responsible for so much human suffering and wealth destruction that people will love the private alternatives that will spring forth from the marketplace. There's been no case of anarchy as far as I can tell that was ended by some popular movement by the people. Its always some outsider tyrant/usurper.

Lovely black and white world you live in. Now, find me a tyrant/usurper who ever, ever rose to power over a people without the slightest consent from those people--aside from invading emperors, that is. I dare you.


Where's their constitution? Show me it. Its not written down fool. Its just passed down traditions.

It still takes power from the monarch and gives it to an elected Parliament. Maybe if they had ever gotten all their traditions written down and codified they wouldn't be ahead of us on the race to tyranny, eh? Written contracts were always easier to enforce than oral contracts. Makes more sense than some of your arguments...

[nobody's_hero]

England does not have a written Constitution. And despite having had government in that country well before there was government in America they aren't really doing too bad relative to us. They're only a bit farther along the path to complete tyranny/control.

England also has a long history of people vying for power, even in the absence of a Constitution. As I said earlier, it is just as utopian to think that there will never be someone who seeks to exploit and enslave others in the absence of government, as it is to think that paper alone will stop the tyrants.

It all comes back to the people keeping their rulers (whether self-imposed rulers or just those who filled the void) under their thumbs. When they finally awaken and must make their case, perhaps it is not so unwise to have a written law with which to judge the wrongdoings, and to measure the extent of usurpation of the law.

[paulitics]

Anarchy already works. There's anarchy when you drive your car.
I don't think this is a good example of anarchy, because there are laws to keep people in check. If there aren't red lights to keep people from speeding through intersections, people will speed through intersections. Perhaps only the more reckless and thoughtless, but they still will.

Who would punish the reckless thug who runs over granny on the road? Who would decide what is just punishment? Why would the private police (I assume there would be at least this) not be subject to corruption as well? What would keep the police from truning into nothing more than a mob? What would keep the police from forming an alliance with another police force? What would keep them from forming a government (large police force) Who will stop other people in the town next to you from wanting to turn collectivist if it is their choice?

Will there be some contract to state in this area, only anarchy is allowed, or such and such consequence? Doesn't this become like the law itself?




Countless other areas of your life are examples of anarchy.
There are also countless other areas where socialism can work in a local area amongst a group of people. If it is consensual, anarchism or socialism can work. But, there would still need to be an agreement, a contract with rules in place, where there are punishments for not following anarachism or socialism. You can't have some people forming socialism and others anarchism together.



Anarchy or voluntaryism is NOT a fleeting moment thing. There would be no vacuum to fill if we had no government. That's what I think you and a lot of the other constitutionalists/minarchists aren't understanding. No government means not allowing one group the power over the rest of us.

In a perfect world, this can work. in a perfect world, socialism can work. Not allowing one group to exploit the others will happen how? How do you keep that from happening?



Besides going house to house, without a government it would be very difficult for any group to "take over".

Who says it has to be in their house? it can be a mob, a gang, anyone, while their working demanding their cut. You know, like a mob.


On the other hand, even if we somehow elected hundreds of libertarians to office, small government would quickly slip back into big government as soon as the first politician makes promises on what he will "get" for his constituents.

Yes it would eventually, but it would take time. Freedom requires a vigilant citizenry who is not naive about how the dirty filthy liars will cheat them. In other words, they have to pay attention. I don't believe anarchy is possible on a large scale, because eventually gangs, than mobs, than governments will form.

I'm a realist. You can't trust people to do the right thing, or to remain individualistic for long, if the benefits of not behaving this way are great. This is what greed is, and it will exist in anarchy just as much as in other societies. Marx didn't account for greed in the public sector. I think you guys are making the same mistake in the opposite direction.


Anarchy/voluntaryism is changing a mindset. Of course it's not an easy route, but if we do not change mindsets, we are going to have to live in this crappy socialist system for the rest of our lives .


I wish we could all live this way, but it's not possible unless human nature fundamentally changes, which won't ever happen.

[nobody's_hero]

You don't know that. But I do know that there's a couple of generations older than you who were actually educated in the Constitution, and if you don't think they'll howl if the government tries to do to them what it does to you kids, you're nuts.



The hell you say. They've been doing the Constitutional Monarchy thing since the Magna Carta, child. That's like three quarters of a millenium. Been sleeping?

Daniel Hannan has made the claim that England does not have a written Constitution (in the sense of one like the U.S.) several times on Freedom Watch. It does have a parliamentary system, of course. But, it is free to make practically whatever laws it sees fit.

[powerofreason]

Lovely black and white world you live in. Now, find me a tyrant/usurper who ever, ever rose to power over a people without the slightest consent from those people--aside from invading emperors, that is. I dare you.
Hmm. Well the Constitution started off this great thing called democracy/representative government. Guess what that led to? Hitler, for starters. If Germany were a monarchy could Hitler have seized power? Absolutely not. Refer back to that Kinsella quote I posted a few times. Sums up the evils the Constitution led to quite nicely.


Now, find me a tyrant/usurper who ever, ever rose to power over a people without the slightest consent from those people

Overwhelming military might is how anarchies are overturned. Its never with consent of the people. Find me an example that proves otherwise. I'm not sure what your point is here. But what is obvious to me is that you're almost completely unfamiliar with modern anarcho-capitalist thought. You're stuck in a false Constitutionalist/traditionalist paradigm.

[powerofreason]

Its funny that I always hear statists make the argument that anarchy would require a change in human nature to work. But the exact opposite is true! Look at the trail of death and destruction that governments have left just in the 20th century! What system could be worse? Certainly not a peaceful anarchy that lacks the institutionalized violence of government. Since government is the biggest criminal of all an anarchist society is just left with the small fraction of crime carried out by private criminals which can easily be dealt with in many different ways. And remember that black markets (and the inept public police who are in reality the crime cleanup crew) enable massive profits for mafias/organized crime. Without black markets crime just won't pay.

[acptulsa]

Hmm. Well the Constitution started off this great thing called democracy/representative government. Guess what that led to? Hitler, for starters. If Germany were a monarchy could Hitler have seized power?

So, you honestly consider Kaiser Wilhelm II an improvement?! The guy who was too insane for Bismarck to stomach?!

Go appoint yourself a king if you love monarchy so much. I'll be living somewhere else... :rolleyes:


Overwhelming military might is how anarchies are overturned. Its never with consent of the people.

Find me an anarchy that hasn't been, and isn't about to be, overturned.


Its funny that I always hear statists make the argument that anarchy would require a change in human nature to work. But the exact opposite is true! Look at the trail of death and destruction that governments have left just in the 20th century! What system could be worse?

A mafia is worse. Power needs balancing. This is a simple, practical matter. And there are always things that are worse. Your penchant for worshipping monarchs tells me you don't understand history deeply enough to learn anything practical from it.

Google the Inquisition, son. Then learn how it was the least bad of its ilk in Europe at the time. Get a clue.

[paulitics]

Daniel Hannan has made the claim that England does not have a written Constitution (in the sense of one like the U.S.) several times on Freedom Watch. It does have a parliamentary system, of course. But, it is free to make practically whatever laws it sees fit.

Yep, and his whole point was that America is much harder to take down because of our constittution.

[nobody's_hero]

Hmm. Well the Constitution started off this great thing called democracy/representative government. Guess what that led to? Hitler, for starters. If Germany were a monarchy could Hitler have seized power? Absolutely not. Refer back to that Kinsella quote I posted a few times. Sums up the evils the Constitution led to quite nicely.


The Constitution did not create Hitler. That's about the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Hitler created Hitler, with help from millions of sheeple who wanted nothing more than to impose their will over others.

People like that exist with or without a Constitution.

[nobody's_hero]

Yep, and his whole point was that America is much harder to take down because of our constittution.

I'd say his point was that we at least have something to point at and say, "Look, government: You have failed at this, this, and this. You do not have the authority in the contract to do that, that, or that. The evidence against you is overwhelming."

I still agree that it isn't the fault of the Constitution, but it is a fault of the people who failed to enforce it, or use it to their advantage when their liberties were jeopardized.

[powerofreason]

The Constitution did not create Hitler. That's about the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Hitler created Hitler, with help from millions of sheeple who wanted nothing more than to impose their will over others.

People like that exist with or without a Constitution.

Sure, but its democracy that allows them to hoodwink the people and take over. The question is how much longer would it have taken for modern democracy to catch on if not for the Constitution.

[paulitics]

Its funny that I always hear statists make the argument that anarchy would require a change in human nature to work. But the exact opposite is true! Look at the trail of death and destruction that governments have left just in the 20th century! What system could be worse? Certainly not a peaceful anarchy that lacks the institutionalized violence of government. Since government is the biggest criminal of all an anarchist society is just left with the small fraction of crime carried out by private criminals which can easily be dealt with in many different ways.

Ok, in the peaceful anarchy, what makes a small fraction of crime possible?Why are you assuming this? Wy won't it not be rampant with gangs, mobs, or the private police force that becomes corrupt itself? can you intellectually prove that corruption won't exist, and that the powerful won't expolit the weak without assuming a change in human nature.
And how will the private criminals be dealt with? Who will deal with them, and how will corruption not occur?

[acptulsa]

Sure, but its democracy that allows them to hoodwink the people and take over. The question is how much longer would it have taken for modern democracy to catch on if not for the Constitution.

No, his question was 'how can you parlay the question above into the statement you made with a straight face--and did you expect to get away with it?'

[powerofreason]

Yep, and his whole point was that America is much harder to take down because of our constittution.

Sadly thats just not true. When is the Constitution ever used today as a reason not to pass a law? Hardly ever. There are so many laws today that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights its a complete joke.

[acptulsa]

Sadly thats just not true. When is the Constitution ever used today as a reason not to pass a law? Hardly ever. There are so many laws today that violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights its a complete joke.

...and yet here you are saying things in public that Kim Jong Il would shoot you for without hesitation. Now, if you tell me that the Consitution has nothing to do with the fact that we have yet to descend into complete, Kim Jong Il-style tyranny, I'll look back on my life experience, and call you a baldfaced liar.

Some of us have been fighting the good fight since before you were born. And if we didn't do it by teaching people to understand the Constitution then I'm damned if I know how we kept free speech alive long enough for you to enjoy some of it. Because the Constitution is what we always used, and use still, to slow the growth of the modern uglystate.

[powerofreason]

Ok, in the peaceful anarchy, what makes a small fraction of crime possible?

The lack of a coercive monopoly on law and order.


Why are you assuming this?

Umm well lets see. No victimless crimes. No black market. No corrupt police. No corrupt courts. No unaccountable government goon squads. No economic chaos caused by government. I could go on and on.


Wy won't it not be rampant with gangs, mobs, or the private police force that becomes corrupt itself?

Private police that aren't doing their jobs properly will go out of business. Corruption is a government problem. Gangs and mafias get their power from the black market. Most other small crimes are caused by the high price of drugs. What you're left with is the small fraction of crimes that are crimes of passion, like the wife killing the husband she doesn't like, etc, etc.


can you intellectually prove that corruption won't exist, and that the powerful won't expolit the weak without assuming a change in human nature.
And how will the private criminals be dealt with? Who will deal with them, and how will corruption not occur?

Read The Market For Liberty (http://www.book.freekeene.com). The market will always find the best solutions after a period of trial and error but this book lays out some likely free market solutions that could work.

[paulitics]

I'd say his point was that we at least have something to point at and say, "Look, government: You have failed at this, this, and this. You do not have the authority in the contract to do that, that, or that. The evidence against you is overwhelming."

I still agree that it isn't the fault of the Constitution, but it is a fault of the people who failed to enforce it, or use it to their advantage when their liberties were jeopardized.

Which was predicted by the founding fathers. I remember what Jefferson said about having a private central bank print the money....that we would wake up slaves to the bankers, which is exactly what has happened. I believe so many of our problems stem from that, and subsequently their money influencing the media, the schools, tetc.
A powerful and rich group of people worked behind the scenes to turn us into mindless zombies who don't understand the value of liberty. People are extremely naive, and trust authority too much. These are human flaws that have always existed under any system of government or lack there of.

[powerofreason]

...and yet here you are saying things in public that Kim Jong Il would shoot you for without hesitation. Now, if you tell me that the Consitution has nothing to do with the fact that we have yet to descend into complete, Kim Jong Il-style tyranny, I'll look back on my life experience, and call you a baldfaced liar.

I don't know alot about Korean history so I'll use China as an example. It is in the Chinese culture and tradition to respect and obey authority without question. It is also in the Chinese tradition to be very collectivist and community-minded. A lot of it goes back to Confucianism. I'm not going to get into this very deeply but you can see that that tradition of bowing down to authority is much different from the rugged individualism that is the tradition of America. I can't see where words on paper written by a bunch of mercantilist elitists come in.

Now, I don't believe that America will descend into complete tyranny because I believe that the federal government will implode (mostly) on its own eventually. It will collapse under its own weight. What will that mean for state governments? We'll just have to wait and see but I bet anarchy will stick somewhere. And then maybe it can spread. Who knows. Maybe there will be some type of transition to anarchy via little city-states. But now I'm getting off topic.

[acptulsa]

We'll just have to wait and see but I bet anarchy will stick somewhere. And then maybe it can spread. Who knows. Maybe there will be some type of transition to anarchy via little city-states. But now I'm getting off topic.

No, you're starting to make sense for once. And if we have a minarchy doing what the Constitution proscribes and ensuring for free trade between these societies and providing for their common defense, maybe your little utopias will actually have a practical chance to grow, too.

If not, they'll just be pigeons at a wolf convention.

[powerofreason]

No, you're starting to make sense for once. And if we have a minarchy doing what the Constitution proscribes and ensuring for free trade between these societies and providing for their common defense, maybe your little utopias will actually have a practical chance to grow, too.

If not, they'll just be pigeons at a wolf convention.

a) national defense is a myth
b) the voluntary society is the best defense against foreign invasion
c) small states or nations can't afford to practice protectionism
d) utopia requires a change in human nature which is not how anarchy is supposed to come about (or how it has ever come about in the past)

[acptulsa]

b) the voluntary society is the best defense against foreign invasion

...unless they've nuked you into one big parking lot and they're just coming to paint the stripes.

You're starting to sound like a parrot. You parrot talking points and repeat yourself, but don't address the real concerns I and others have articulated in this thread. So, what's the point of continuing to try to engage you?

Think I'll sign off of this one...

[paulitics]

The lack of a coercive monopoly on law and order.
What keeps it from turning into a monopoly on law an order over time? Why would in a small town, a monopoly not exist run by gang thugs? I guess these thugs will duke it out, but eventually one gain will become powerful enough to where few will step up to them.



No black market. ok


No corrupt police.
impossible



No corrupt courts.
so, i guess you are saying there is no court. Who will decide the punishment if someone kills my grandmother with their car, and drives off?








Private police that aren't doing their jobs properly will go out of business.
Says who? how do they not just turn into a mob, who makes money in more creative ways? Or, what if there is another mob that exists, and they get paid off to protect them? The pay offs could be more lucrative than private security.



Corruption is a government problem.
No corruption is a human problem. You are assuming a change in human nature here, the same flaw that Marx made when he thought corruption doesn't exist in government. Corruption stems from greed and will always occur under any system.



Gangs and mafias get their power from the black market.
They also get money and power through intimidation of good people. You know getting a share of their profits form mom and pop restaurant, or else a shot in the face. They can also get money from robbing, or getting paid for murder. They can loot the next town over, etc.

[powerofreason]

What keeps it from turning into a monopoly on law an order over time?

Then you're back to square one. Its a possibility, albeit a remote one.


Why would in a small town, a monopoly not exist run by gang thugs? I guess these thugs will duke it out, but eventually one gain will become powerful enough to where few will step up to them.


Average, good, people outnumber criminal thugs by a wide margin. Everyone slips up sometimes but these career criminals that you're worried about would be fewer than in the current paradigm and far more efficiently dealt with by free market solutions.



so, i guess you are saying there is no court. Who will decide the punishment if someone kills my grandmother with their car, and drives off?



The Market For Liberty (http://www.book.freekeene.com) is one book that explains how a system of private law might work. I don't feel like regurgitating that information to you when you can just spend half an hour reading and get a better explanation than I could ever give.




Says who? how do they not just turn into a mob, who makes money in more creative ways? Or, what if there is another mob that exists, and they get paid off to protect them? The pay offs could be more lucrative than private security.




No corruption is a human problem. You are assuming a change in human nature here, the same flaw that Marx made when he thought corruption doesn't exist in government. Corruption stems from greed and will always occur under any system.

Greed is checked by risk in the marketplace. Show me in what business greed is a bad thing. Greed is checked by practically nothing in the government.

I'm taking a break from this thread as of now I think i've covered quite a bit. You minarchists and your paranoid fears are amusing yet tiresome at the same time to rebut over and over again.

[powerofreason]

...unless they've nuked you into one big parking lot and they're just coming to paint the stripes.

You're starting to sound like a parrot. You parrot talking points and repeat yourself, but don't address the real concerns I and others have articulated in this thread. So, what's the point of continuing to try to engage you?

Think I'll sign off of this one...

Obviously you're a lost cause. If you don't want to open your mind and do some reading then I can't help you. Keep believing in the myth of government your whole life and die a very confused person. I don't care.

[acptulsa]

Obviously you're a lost cause. If you don't want to open your mind and do some reading then I can't help you. Keep believing in the myth of government your whole life and die a very confused person. I don't care.

Oh you bet. Much harder to believe in something that exists in the natural world than in something that doesn't. Lotta work.

Stable anarchy is the mythical creature, my friend.

[mport1]

acptulsa, many of the arguments that you have presented have been refuted in great detail by many great libertarian thinkers. I suggest reading either Practical Anarchy (http://freedomainradio.com/free/#PA) or The Market for Liberty (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/) if you are interested in why these arguments do not hold merit when throught through carefully and logically.

The key thing to consider is the free market is the best method of problem solving out there. The concerns you bring up are the same ones voiced by many people about anarchy (I held them myself until opening my mind to the philosophy and doing some reading). The fact that these same arguments are brought up again and again lead one to believe that there would be a market answer for them without the rule of a violent monopoly. Competiton and the profit motive provide significant incentives for addressing the desires of consumers as I'm sure you are aware.

It is never right to initiate violence against your neighbors and we should seek a peaceful alternative to human interactions.

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh you bet. Much harder to believe in something that exists in the natural world than in something that doesn't. Lotta work.

Stable archy is the mythical creature, my friend.

fixed it for you. :)

[acptulsa]

fixed it for you. :)

This is a fine represenative microcosm of your so-called powers of rational discourse; nothing more.

[powerofreason]

Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day! (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010218.asp)

[paulitics]

Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day! (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010218.asp)
This guy writes
"Secession from Britain was a mistake."

All this stuff is silly, and most everything he states or implies is wrong. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. When he starts out like that he is either being dishonest or ignorant. The problem is not the declaration of independence, the bill of rights, but an apathetic public who have been indoctrinated by the state to not hold the politicians accountable to abide by the oaths they swore to uphold.

In took 200 years to get to this ugly point in history, but it was not the constitution that created this, the constitution greatly slowed it down.

Yeah, living under British rule would have been better. It worked out so well for Scottland, Ireland, India, the Middle East and Africa. And it was working so well for us before the revolution, to have a king thousands of miles away unaccountable. In other words taxation without representation. Colonization is one of the worst forms of tyrrany.

[literatim]

Overwhelming military might is how anarchies are overturned. Its never with consent of the people. Find me an example that proves otherwise. I'm not sure what your point is here. But what is obvious to me is that you're almost completely unfamiliar with modern anarcho-capitalist thought. You're stuck in a false Constitutionalist/traditionalist paradigm.

So armies aren't filled with people?


Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day! (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010218.asp)

Are we talking about the same Britain that wouldn't give American colonies representation in parliament, attacked Massachusetts, housed soldiers in peoples homes, and forced slaves upon their colonies?

[powerofreason]

So armies aren't filled with people?

Foreign people.




Are we talking about the same Britain that wouldn't give American colonies representation in parliament, attacked Massachusetts, housed soldiers in peoples homes, and forced slaves upon their colonies?


Yes.

[BillyDkid]

Glad you asked! Private law is the answer. In order to learn more about this free market cure for coercion I suggest you take a look at The Market For Liberty, by the Tannehills. There are of course many other books you can look at but this one is fairly short and to the point and is a good starting point imo. You can find it free in both audiobook and pdf format at book.freekeene.com (http://www.book.freekeene.com) and I'm sure mises.org hosts it as well.
Private law??? Well, once the bulk of people agree on the law, isn't it de facto public law??? I am not seeing the distinction in principle. The point of, the idea behind, the rule of law is that what is allowable and is not allowable is spelled out and does not change from one day to the next depending on the mood of those enforcing the law. There are two alternatives - the rule of law or arbitrary rule by whoever has the compacity/power to rule.

I am not saying whether the law should be determined by a bunch of law makers in DC or it should be made by a group of like minded citizens. I'm just saying that you operate society on the basis of an existing understanding of what is acceptable and what is not and you can't be arrested one day for what was acceptable the day before. The Constitution was an attempt to apply the rule of law to the federal government so that we are not subject to the whims of whoever happens to hold power. Sadly, it has often not worked out that way, but the principle that we can know what will get us into trouble and what will not is sound.

[Brassmouth]

We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

:rolleyes:

So is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

(That's North Korea, for you geopolitical illiterates out there.)

[paulitics]

:rolleyes:

So is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

(That's North Korea, for you geopolitical illiterates out there.)


Don' t forget Union of Soviet Socialists Republics. So what's you point, because they have the word republic in it, that makes them a republic? Give me a break.

Sorry, you know those two communist states were never republics or intentended to be so. They are/were single party dictatorships run by the communists. You may want to read up a little bit more, if you think Kim -il is Thomas Jefferson.

[jmdrake]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

:rolleyes: I suppose you'd prefer to still be a British colony? Because if the original 13 hadn't united long enough to throw off the British yoke and hadn't stayed united later in order to keep it off that's exactly what we'd be. In fact part of what was behind the war between the states was an effort by the British bankers to regain control. By contrast the push for an NAU has nothing to do with expanding the cause of freedom and protecting me and mine from foreign domination. The exact opposite is true. Now as for being a "52 state union"...when those two moon colonies come online I have no problem with that.

[jmdrake]

Happy We-Should-Restore-The-Monarchy-And-Rejoin-Britain Day! (http://blog.mises.org/archives/010218.asp)

LOL. Tell me this moron is joking! Especially with this line

America's reckless utopianism corrupted its mother state, rendering it unfit to rejoin.

So somehow we are responsible for Britain becoming corrupt? Or what about this line?

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 led to all the standard evils of war and raising an army--in the words of Jeff Hummel, "unfunded government debt, paper money, skyrocketing inflation, price controls, legal tender laws, direct impressment of supplies and wide-spread conscription." Hmm, doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

So American independence is what caused war and taxation? All of the taxes and wars that went on in Europe before America was even thought of is the fault of American? And I'm supposed to take this seriously because.......

It's funny that in your sig you attack all governments...and then link to a blog post supporting monarchy. Hello? That is a form of government in case you didn't know.

Ok. It's official now. I'm NOT a libertarian. I'm a constitutionalist (just like Ron Paul) and proud of it. You can have your monarchy. You can delude yourself that the American revolution caused all of the ills of the world. And you can wonder why you're not getting anywhere with anyone and blame it all on Saturday morning cartoons.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[heavenlyboy34]

This is a fine represenative microcosm of your so-called powers of rational discourse; nothing more.

Not really. But if you want to believe in that bit of fiction, you are free to do so. :cool:

[CCTelander]

Not really. But if you want to believe in that bit of fiction, you are free to do so. :cool:

Minarchists/constitutionalist seem to believe in a great deal of fiction. What's a little bit more? ;)

[literatim]

So armies aren't filled with people?

Foreign people.


Always? So the American Revolution was fought with foreign people?

I thought anarchists don't believe in government borders. So there can't be "foreign people" under your philosophy.

[Galileo Galilei]

Here's a question for the constitution worshippers,

Why are you so extremely opposed to a 52 state union (NAU), but you have no problem whatsoever with a 50 state union?

Here's the answer:

If the 52 state union was set up like the U.S. Constitution, with a mix of direct democracy and state's rights, separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial, and also between state and federal, delegated powers only to the federal, checks and balances, a bill of rights, a bicameral legislature, plus additional checks against federal abuses that have been discovered since 1787, if the 52 state union were set up that way, then I would back it.

In fact, for a supernational government, I would only support if it had a quad-cameral legislature, with one where each nation is equal, another based on population, another based on GNP, and the 4th based on area.

It would also have to have more specifically defined and weaker executive powers than the U.S. Constitution.

If its anything like the United Nations, it is not even remotely close.

[Galileo Galilei]

The constitution was a secretive power grab which illegally overthrew the articles of confederation and established a strong federal government.

This is a lie.

First, all the states present at the Constitutional Convention approved the Constitution.

Second, the Confederation Congress approved the Constitution and sentit to the States.

Third, the State legislatures approved the Constitution, and set up the special elections for ratifying conventions.

Fourth, the people voted for candidates based on their public positions regarding the Constitution.

Fifth, all the States ratified the Constitution.

At any point along the way, the Constitution could have been stopped.

None of this was secret. The text of the Constitution was printed in the newspapers all over the place, and the papers were filled with analysis and debate, everytning was the exact opposite of a power grab.

Nor was it illegal for any of the 13 states to secede from the Articles of Confederation.

[Brassmouth]

You may want to read up a little bit more, if you think Kim -il is Thomas Jefferson.

They were both slave owners who created States that exploit and murder people on massive scales. (Assuming you're attempting to refer to Kim il-Sung, of course. Hard to tell since you butchered the name. You should probably do a bit more reading.)

I always find it hilarious that you people openly criticize Russia and Korea for not being "true republics" (whatever arbitrary definition you attribute that label to), but when it's the USA, you turn a blind eye to the authoritarianism of the US State since its inception and proudly beat your chest about the Constitution.

Wake the fuck up. Obama dreams of being Kim Jong-il, and it won't be long before his dreams come true here in the USSA.