Political Document or Natural Law, what's your real motivation for Liberty?

[ClayTrainor]

Please read before voting

I know this is going to be a divisive topic, so i made it in hot topics. Please stay respectful, and don't start insulting and degrading those who have the opposite view. I think this is one of the most important discussions we need to have, since it reflects our entire mission statement and direction. I would also like to post the mission statement of this forum, just to make everyone aware.


Forum Mission Statement

Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

It's interesting to me that Natural Law is not illustrated as an obvious part of our overall goal. I'm not trying to say Ron Paul isn't a constitutionalist or that the constitution shouldn't be part of our mission statement. I'm just saying, I think Natural Law i the real reason and the real argument that leads people to our movement. We need to represent Natural Law AT LEAST as much as the constitution.


-------------------------------------



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Jefferson echoing John Locke in the declaration.

"Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are "inalienable" and come to us from "Our Creator." Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government." - Judge Napolitano

"Does anyone ever argue that taxation is theft? That the fruit of your labor is yours? That at some point it's just plain against the natural law, against common decency and morality, for the government to take such a huge portion of everything we work so hard for ... and that maybe the government should be financed by user fees -- if I want a service from the government I pay for it, if I don't want a service from the government I don't owe it anything?" - The Judge

In my opinion, the reason why the constitution is often regarded as the best political document ever written, is because of its foundation on natural law, and natural individual rights of man. The constitution doesn't fully respect natural law, but it comes the closest to any written political document in history. This is why it has such value, and why so many of us have such a connection to it. The real connection is Natural Law, not the document itself.

If you ask me, we focus too much on the constituton, and not enough on Natural Law. Yes the constitution is important, but only as a means to achieve respect for Natural Law, which was the basis of its creation.

The roots of America and Freedom are inherent in the Natural Law, not a political document. Our arguments become so much stronger and consistent when we truly understand this. This isn't an argument against the constitution, this is an argument favoring the constitution to illustrate the importance of Natural Law!

I just felt the need to get this off my chest, please stay respectful in your responses and please vote honestly :)

[jfriedman]

I voted Constitution. Pragmatically, I have found it easier to speak of a tangible document often taught to people in school (though usually poorly taught), and politically speaking it is simple to say I follow the Constitution than saying "I follow Natural Law", when you may only have second(s) to get a point across. While Natural Law is not explicit in the Mission Statement, I think it is an implied end-goal.

One of the reason I joined the board was because of the strong mission statement for political activism. You may also want to check out Mises.org and Freesteader.com which have fruitful and lively discussions centered around philosophy.

[ClayTrainor]

I voted Constitution. Pragmatically, I have found it easier to speak of a tangible document often taught to people in school (though usually poorly taught), and politically speaking it is simple to say I follow the Constitution than saying "I follow Natural Law", when you may only have second(s) to get a point across. While Natural Law is not explicit in the Mission Statement, I think it is an implied end-goal.

Good points, and glad to have you here :)

I personally think Natural Law could use a lot more recognition in all aspects of political activism, including our own. It doesn't need to be just "implied", because it still needs to be taught and understood, as much as the constitution. We should all be speaking on Natural Law and it's importance on a regular basis.

I personally have had a lot more success defending natural law, to get people interested in becoming active, although the constitution is clearly a powerful tool to drag in a lot of support as well :)



One of the reason I joined the board was because of the strong mission statement for political activism. You may also want to check out Mises.org and Freesteader.com which have fruitful and lively discussions centered around philosophy.

Just recently signed up with the Mises people. And i agree, strong political activism should be a huge goal of ours, i just don't agree that politics or a political document should be our core motivation :)

[jfriedman]

Good points :)

I personally think Natural Law could use a lot more recognition in all aspects of political activism, including our own. It doesn't need to be just "implied", because it still needs to be taught and understood, as much as the constitution. We should all be speaking on Natural Law and it's importance on a regular basis.

I personally have had a lot more success defending natural law, to get people interested in becoming active, although the constitution is clearly a powerful tool to drag in a lot of support as well :)



Just recently signed up with the Mises people. And i agree, strong political activism should be a huge goal of ours, i just don't agree that politics or a political document should be our core motivation :)

I agree that our society needs to understand Natural Law. Most individual's understanding of its tenets is sorely lacking. However, I do not find it necessary during political activism -- of course it depends on one's political activism. Back in 2007, my political activism centered around collecting votes in hopes of affecting political change via a candidate with a solid understanding of Natural Law.

I think that an education in Natural Law is a consequence of first awakening politically to the fact that something is not-right in how we are governed. Once you ave this awakening, your next step is to search for how things should be, and that is when I find people are ripe for Natural Law --- not at the county fair when they're eating an ice-cream cone. Sorry if that was cryptic -- one reason I never sign-up for messageboards as I find it difficult to make a point when you can't sit down and drink a cup of coffee with someone.

[ClayTrainor]

I think that an education in Natural Law is a consequence of first awakening politically to the fact that something is not-right in how we are governed.
I've never really thought about this, but it's a very good point.

It's up to us to expose people to the eloquent truths in Natural Law, as soon as they get exposed to the horrors of being governed. Lucky for us, more people are waking up more than ever right now, and there has never been such a valuable opportunity to get people thinking on the right path. I hope we don't waste it all on politics, and maintain our true motivations :)

If all of our activists are aware of natural law, we will be the most consistent and moral intellectual movement on this planet. I have faith that this movement can change the world, if we focus on Natural Law for all activism.


Once you ave this awakening, your next step is to search for how things should be, and that is when I find people are ripe for Natural Law --- not at the county fair when they're eating an ice-cream cone. Sorry if that was cryptic
Not at all, i think i get what you mean.

We do have to recognize that most people want to take an interest in politics now though, even if it's just to the point of having an opinion. You have to capture them in the right state of mind. Places of leisure and famliy usually isn't a good place to bother them with philosophical and political discussions.



-- one reason I never sign-up for messageboards as I find it difficult to make a point when you can't sit down and drink a cup of coffee with someone.

Yea, i hear ya man. This message board is a special one though. We've accomplished a lot by using this as a central point of grassroots organization. I'm proud to be a member here :)

[Kludge]

Motivation? I don't want to put up with Gov't. Is someone here really motivated by a deep desire for natural law instead of... um... rational reasons? Both the Constitution and Natural Law provide ammunition for disingenuous arguments, but unlike Natural Law, the Constitution would leave us with a well-framed republic which almost certainly maximizes liberty (over other forms of gov't) for the majority of people.

[ClayTrainor]

Motivation? I don't want to put up with Gov't. Is someone here really motivated by a deep desire for natural law instead of... um... rational reasons?

Ahh, the nihilistic mindset.

Natural Law is rational. Are you saying Natural Rights don't exist?



Both the Constitution and Natural Law provide ammunition for disingenuous arguments,
Provide a disingenuous natural law argument, please. You've got me curious, as you obviously feel you know something that I, Mr. Napolitano and Ron Paul, don't.



but unlike Natural Law, the Constitution would leave us with a well-framed republic which almost certainly maximizes liberty (over other forms of gov't) for the majority of people.

Burden of proof is on you. As far as i see it, that constitution didn't work as it was intended. I don't see most of America as a well framed republic anymore. How would you write it differently? Why would natural law written down, and enforced, be any less moral than a political interpretation of it?

Is it really pieces of paper that are important here?

"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. " - Washington

[LibertyEagle]

i just don't agree that politics or a political document should be our core motivation :)

Freedom is our core motivation. The Constitution is a tool to accomplish it.

[ClayTrainor]

Freedom is our core motivation. The Constitution is a tool to accomplish it.

So Constitutional government when achieved = Freedom?

I believe arguments for the constitution often support natural law, but arguments for natural law ALWAYS support natural law

Natural Law is the reason the constitution is so valuable, and i personally think nature is easier to understand and explain to people, than politics. :)

[YumYum]

As far as i see it, that constitution didn't work as it was intended. I don't see most of America as a well framed republic anymore. How would you write it differently? Why would natural law written down, and enforced, be any less moral than a political interpretation of it?

Is it really pieces of paper that are important here?

"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. " - Washington

The Constitution gives Congress the freedom to borrow as much money as it desires. That is why we are in the mess we're in. When the dollar collapses, and our Fedreral government falls apart and there is choas, do we throw out the Constitution, revise it, our keep it the way it is and try again?

[ClayTrainor]

LE, what i'm trying to say is...

I think Natural Law belongs in our mission statement, in some form. Obviously i respect this as Josh's property, i just wanted to present my case :)

Professing Natural Law is at least as important as professing the Constitution, and it is the foundation of our movement, and activism, imo. This poll is just getting started, but so far it proves my point.

I think a lot of the an-caps are potential activists (smart ones too), and want to help us but, they feel a bit of resentment when we constantly profess the foundation of our movement as a political document. We need to embrace natural law, for them, for me, and recognize that the constitution is important because of natural law and the natural rights of man. :)

Understanding the constitution is very important to this movement, but nowhere near as important as understanding Natural Law.

[ClayTrainor]

The Constitution gives Congress the freedom to borrow as much money as it desires. That is why we are in the mess we're in. When the dollar collapses, and our Fedreral government falls apart and there is choas, do we throw out the Constitution, revise it, our keep it the way it is and try again?

Well, i personally wouldn't want another group borrowing money on my behalf, after experiencing one of the largest national debts of all time. A government can only borrow money based on it's ability to enforce a tax, can it not? How else can they repay the lender if they don't tax? I say we try letting the people decide the entire process, for once.

I do not believe a piece of paper should entitle a group to tax the property of everyone on a massive piece of land. If we do need a document of some kind, to remind us of Natural Law, I think we need to either restore the original bill of rights, or revise it, and forget about the constitution and the few powers that it grants to a group.

Power corrupts absolutely

[Kludge]

Ahh, the nihilistic mindset.

Natural Law is rational. Are you saying Natural Rights don't exist?

Whether belief in Natural Law is rational or not, being motivated by Natural Law does not make sense to me. I would be motivated by hope of a government which abides by Natural Law (or the Constitution...) and the benefits that would bring me over the current form of government, maybe, but not by Natural Law (or the Constitution), itself.

As far as natural rights, I don't see any problem in everyone claiming they own their mind and all which it controls (uh... usually, that would be just one body), but to claim property beyond your mind's domain is a gray area. It is a gray area because of our inability to see anything more than a crude imitation of truth. Because all people do not understand ownership in the same way, claiming your way is "right" and ought to be enforced by government to protect you from dissidents is hypocritical: it is an arrogant violation of the non-aggression principle which derives from Natural Law. Our imperfection makes morality subjective and suggests all morality is an arbitrary hinderence in what I imagine can be our only rational goal: feeling good and not feeling bad.... UNLESS you feel good by being moral (or feel bad by being immoral), but I can't imagine that being anything other than delusion.


Provide a disingenuous natural law argument, please. You've got me curious, as you obviously feel you know something that I, Mr. Napolitano and Ron Paul, don't.

"You can't burn my house down: I own it!"

"You can't tax us: you don't have the moral authority!"

"Universal Healthcare?! You don't have the right!"

"You can't shoot me: I'm protected by Natural Law!" ("Quick, reflect the light off your L.P. lapel pin into the eyes of the aggressor!")

Obviously, "you" can do whatever he's able, which is not limited to what is and isn't moral (unless he's a moralist with a severe case of OCD, maybe...). The above examples are the Rothbardian Cult's equivalent of prayer ("I know there's a plan in place, but.... your way is wrong, so these plans ought to be changed to reflect my will."). You have no authority if you cannot back that authority up with might. A queen is slave to her subjects, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, for if her subjects did not support her, she would have no more power than any other typical person. Morality is not a factor, because it's just an abstract concept, and abstract concepts have no more authority than the people believing in them, and furthermore, if those people force their beliefs ("rational" or not) on others, they are no better than any other petty tyrant. "Right" does not make might. Authority is not power. Might makes right, and power is authority.


Burden of proof is on you. As far as i see it, that constitution didn't work as it was intended. I don't see most of America as a well framed republic anymore. How would you write it differently? Why would natural law written down, and enforced, be any less moral than a political interpretation of it?

Is it really pieces of paper that are important here?

"The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. " - Washington

The Constitution appears to have done a fair bit of good. It isn't perfect, but I'd trust the government-de-jure of our Constitution before the government-de-facto of banks which would almost certainly come out of free markets as they suck the wealth from producers. There's no place I'd rather live (which is currently populated...) than the United States. As you live here, I imagine you hold the same opinion.

Pieces of paper are not important, but the republic the Constitution prescribes protects us from aristocrats and looters to the best of its ability. It is unfortunate that our ancestors failed to maintain those protections.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, what i'm trying to say is...

I think Natural Law belongs in our mission statement, in some form. Obviously i respect this as Josh's property, i just wanted to present my case :)

Professing Natural Law is at least as important as professing the Constitution, and it is the foundation of our movement, and activism, imo. This poll is just getting started, but so far it proves my point.

I think a lot of the an-caps are potential activists (smart ones too), and want to help us but, they feel a bit of resentment when we constantly profess the foundation of our movement as a political document. We need to embrace natural law, for them, for me, and recognize that the constitution is important because of natural law and the natural rights of man. :)

Understanding the constitution is very important to this movement, but nowhere near as important as understanding Natural Law.

I think you are splitting hairs, Clay. The foundation of our movement is liberty. The Constitution is merely a tool in achieving it. There are a number of people from all political persuasions who are working together to reinstate the Constitution as a step in regaining their liberty. Everyone is welcome.

Of course it's important to understand Natural Law, but at some point we have to move past just "understanding" to political action, so that we can achieve our goal. Thus, our mission statement.

[Socratic Method]

The foundation of our movement is liberty. The Constitution is merely a tool in achieving it.

How do you define liberty?

Cheers,
SM.

[Dr.3D]

How do you define liberty?

Cheers,
SM.

The Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights, does a pretty good job of defining liberty. At least there is written document showing what rights we are supposed to have.

[ClayTrainor]

I think you are splitting hairs, Clay. The foundation of our movement is liberty.
Liberty is dependent upon natural law. If you don't respect the law of nature, you don't respect liberty.



The Constitution is merely a tool in achieving it.

The significant respect for Natural Law is the reason the constitution is so valuable, and i personally think nature is easier to understand and explain to people, than politics. Natural law arguments are better than constitutional arguments, especially when you want to encourage anyone besides conservatives, to be active.

The constitution is not a clear path to liberty though, as there are several interpretations of it. Natural law is hard to interpret, it's pretty freaking clear, you know "self evident" ;)



There are a number of people from all political persuasions who are working together to reinstate the Constitution as a step in regaining their liberty. Everyone is welcome.


I agree, but what i'm saying is, we're not acknowledging any respect for natural law.

to quote myself


I think a lot of the an-caps are potential activists (smart ones too), and want to help us but, they feel a bit of resentment when we constantly profess the foundation of our movement as a political document. The mods make a point of constantly flashing our mission statement in peoples faces now, which I don't think is 100% accurate of our movements foundation. We need to embrace natural law, for them, for me, and recognize that the constitution is important because of natural law and the natural rights of man.

If we understand the constitution more than our foundation, than i fear this movement may become more about politics than natural law.


Of course it's important to understand Natural Law, but at some point we have to move past just "understanding" to political action, so that we can achieve our goal. Thus, our mission statement.

Do you think everyone who professes respect for the constitution respects natural law?

The mission statement is going to hurt our level activism, and make good activists who don't use regard the constitution as a foundation of rights, reject us, that's all i'm saying. It's too political, not foundational.

If all of our activists are aware of natural law, we will be the most consistent and moral intellectual movement on this planet. I have faith that this movement can change the world, if we focus on Natural Law for all activism.

I'm not saying modify the statement, i'm saying recognize natural law as our foundation, because it is. Our mission statement is very good, it's just too conservative and not libertarian enough, in my opinion. We need to add an element of respect for natural law, or we are just about politics and not much else.

[ClayTrainor]

The Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights, does a pretty good job of defining liberty. At least there is written document showing what rights we are supposed to have.

I would say the bill of rights does a good job without the constitution.

[LibertyEagle]

I would say the bill of rights does a good job without the constitution.

Actually, no. Because that would be saying that the Bill of Rights outlines all of our rights and it does NOT. Far from it.

It is the Constitution that lays out the proper role of government and the constraints thereof. It provides the foundation.

We need both.

[Socratic Method]

The Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights, does a pretty good job of defining liberty. At least there is written document showing what rights we are supposed to have.

So how do you define liberty?

Would this make sense?


"The foundation of our movement is liberty. The Constitution is merely a tool in achieving it."



"The foundation of our movement is the Constitution combined with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution is merely a tool in achieving it."


That would be circular reasoning, no? :)

Cheers,
SM.

[ClayTrainor]

Actually, no. Because that would be saying that the Bill of Rights outlines all of our rights and it does NOT. Far from it.

That's because you believe the government (groups of individuals) have natural rights too. You don't agree with Natural law, if this is the case.




It is the Constitution that lays out the proper role of government and the constraints thereof. It provides the foundation.


Those constraints don't work. Power corrupts absolutely.

I wish they did LE, but they didn't :(

Understanding the constitutions attempt to protect liberty is essential though.



We need both.

We need natural individual rights, not group rights!

[LibertyEagle]

That's because you believe the government (groups of individuals) have natural rights too.
What?????????


You don't agree with Natural law, if this is the case.
Where are you getting this from? I took issue with what you said about the Bill of Rights and I told you why. I stand by it. The Bill of Rights does not limit my rights. If you think it does, then you have a very poor understanding of natural rights.


Those constraints don't work. Power corrupts absolutely.

Which is why we can't sit back and expect a document to do our work for us. It's only as good as we enforce it.


We need natural individual rights, not group rights!
Yes. Who said anything different?

[Socratic Method]

What?????????

Do you believe in the equality of law, for every individual? Should it be applied universally?

Also, if it's not too much trouble - could you please address my previous question as well. :)

Cheers,
SM.

[ClayTrainor]

What?????????



Actually, no. Because that would be saying that the Bill of Rights outlines all of our rights and it does NOT. Far from it.

Perhaps the bill of rights needs to be modified, i'm not sure but, i think it gets the majority of them down pretty good.

It's written to restrict government though, which essentially means that it is written to favor liberty.



It is the Constitution that lays out the proper role of government and the constraints thereof.

You said the bill of rights doesn't outline all of the rights, and then you explain how the constitution lays the role of government.

Where are the natural rights contained that the bill of rights forgot about? Are you referring to the rights of the government under the constitution?

That's how i take it.



Where are you getting this from? I took issue with what you said about the Bill of Rights and I told you why. I stand by it. The Bill of Rights does not limit my rights. If you think it does, then you have a very poor understanding of natural rights.


The bill of rights outlines natural human rights, it is not a limitation, and shouldnt be. It's just an article of eloquent truths. The only reason it is viewed as a limitation, is because the constitution empowers a federal authority.


Which is why we can't sit back and expect a document to do our work for us. It's only as good as we enforce it.

Enforce natural law and natural rights, for every single individual.



Yes. Who said anything different?

Well, what rights are you referring to when you said the bill of rights doesn't get them all?

I would agree with this statement, but i don't agree the constitution is a realistic way of defending them, in fact i think the opposite is true. The constitutional argument is a good one though, because we need to express what the original intent of the constitution is. LIfe, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[ClayTrainor]

I'm being told by the mods that i am naive and i'm disrespecting the mission statement.


And if you continue to disrespect our mission statement I'll ban you.


This forum is losing it's way, and if this is how the mods choose to behave, i expect it to get much worse in the future.

Good luck everyone! I don't think my views or activism is welcome here.

[tremendoustie]

I'm being told by the mods that i am naive and i'm disrespecting the mission statement.



This forum is losing it's way, and if this is how the mods choose to behave, i expect it to get much worse in the future.

Good luck everyone! I don't think my views or activism is welcome here.


Wow, that is disturbing. "Disrespecting the mission statement" ?!. Come on. We used to be a place where everyone was welcome, so that we could have a free exchange of ideas and try to convince people of the ideas of liberty. What are we, becoming borg or something? Are the ideas that form the basis of the "mission statement" so weak that they can't stand up to honest questioning, and need to be protected by threat of banning?

[LibertyEagle]

I would agree with this statement, but i don't agree the constitution is a realistic way of defending them, in fact i think the opposite is true. The constitutional argument is a good one though, because we need to express what the original intent of the constitution is. LIfe, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ok. So this is the bottom line. You think we should be promoting anarchy here. :(

[ClayTrainor]

I hope everyone on this forum will defend my position on this topic, and continue to do so.

The mission statement is awesome, but if the mods don't see this as an improvement, than there is too much love for government here for me.

I love you all and wish you luck!!! Don't get distracted by the politics, always fight for liberty!

[ClayTrainor]

Ok. So this is the bottom line. You think we should be promoting anarchy here. :(

This here, right now, will be my last post unless there is an apology of sorts from RPH.

Have you not been reading the thread?

Natural law. I favor the constitution, and the constitutional argument as a means to liberty, as well as political activism.

Last post... good bye LE.

[Socratic Method]

what the f$)# is going on? :(

[LibertyEagle]

Natural law. I favor the constitution, and the constitutional argument as a means to liberty, as well as political activism.
Clay, I guess you haven't been reading my posts and PMs either. Because what you said above is what we meant by the mission statement. At least, that's my view. Truly, I think you are splitting hairs.


Last post... good bye LE.
:(

[LibertiORDeth]

Natural law probably doesn't exist. The constitution is greatly flawed, and certainly not my "motivation for freedom" and I'm surprised anyone actually voted yes for that. Therefore, I voted neither.

[tremendoustie]

I hope everyone on this forum will defend my position on this topic, and continue to do so.

The mission statement is awesome, but if the mods don't see this as an improvement, than there is too much love for government here for me.

I love you all and wish you luck!!! Don't get distracted by the politics, always fight for liberty!

Don't go man, there's still a lot of room for free exchange of ideas here, and the constitutionalists are doing a great deal to advance liberty as well. We can accomplish a lot of good if we work together, and that is far more important than a few overaggressive mods.

[MRoCkEd]

Natural law probably doesn't exist. The constitution is greatly flawed, and certainly not my "motivation for freedom" and I'm surprised anyone actually voted yes for that. Therefore, I voted neither.
I agree with little lukey here.
I would certainly favor politicians following the constitution, although that definitely would not be my final goal...

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

there isn't enough drama here already? do we need more distractions? are we still hung over from last night? what the deuce?

[jfriedman]

I hope everyone on this forum will defend my position on this topic, and continue to do so.

The mission statement is awesome, but if the mods don't see this as an improvement, than there is too much love for government here for me.

I love you all and wish you luck!!! Don't get distracted by the politics, always fight for liberty!

I agree with Natural Law being important in understanding freedom, but if you make it an explicit point in the mission statement, do you not run the risk of turning the focus of a messageboard about political activism into one concerning the endless debate of philosophy?

I'm not saying debate about philosophy is a bad thing, but it always seems to lead to relationship issues and in-fighting from my travels on the internet.

In fact, it looks like this messageboard has places for it --- it is one of the few political board I've seen that has a religion area.

Can't a messageboard's focus be political activism, and have a spot for those who wish to engage in philosophical debate in a sub-area? It seems like that happens here already to some degree.

[amy31416]

Is there a notion that someone who relies too heavily on natural law is an anarchist and thus doesn't respect the Constitution?

Is there an argument that someone who respects the Constitution too much doesn't give enough respect to natural law?

If I'm right, it definitely seems like splitting hairs, but I don't see the problem with debate about it. It might be interesting.

[Aratus]

i think our semi-perfect constitution stems from the philosophy of natural law...
i simplified things by voting for "constitution" because i could not vote for both.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist so, you know my answer. Personally, I don't think many Constitutionalists even understand how it came about, read the Articles of Confederation, Anti-Federalist Papers, Federalist Papers, or even understand the concepts behind the Constitution.

How many Constitutionalists have read Locke, or Burke? How many have read the history of the time period? How many even know about George Mason? Most of the popular Founders were Hamiltonians. Do Constitutionalists even know there was no Bill of Rights for the first two years? That the Constitution originally never had the Bill of Rights?

The only problem I have with Constitutionalists is they seem to think the Constitution is infallible. That's my major gripe. They say, oh, it can be amended, but none of them even think about clarifying the tools, or changing the amendments that the "Statists" use, or take advantage of. It's all simply "Get back to the Constitution." That doesn't solve anything as Lysander Spooner, put it:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

All these Constitutionalists also don't advocate any form of violent retrieval of our rights, at any period. Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every 20 years to make sure we kept our rights. We are the enforcers of the Constitution, not the SCOTUS. Of course, I don't believe that we should either at this juncture, but at some point if we fail (Constitutionalists and An-Caps) on trying to reverse the current trend, then I will damn sure rather die than live in whats coming.

[Socratic Method]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Wait. Didn't Ron agree with that though?

Cheers,
SM.

[Imperial]

Can somebody explain Natural Law and Natural Rights, their difference and basic ideas? I have a vague idea of what it all means, but I haven't really studied up on it well.

But I do think there is way too much focus on the Constitution as infallible. When we argue just for the Constitution it makes it way too easy for those who want to discard it because it is 'anachronistic' seem more legitimate.

[LibertyEagle]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but it needs to be said.

Those who find it impossible to respect our forum mission statement and our forum guidelines, will want to move on.

[Socratic Method]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, but it needs to be said.

Those who find it impossible to respect our forum mission statement and our forum guidelines, will want to move on.

Which one did you vote for?

Cheers,
SM.

[angelatc]

Liberty is dependent upon natural law. If you don't respect the law of nature, you don't respect liberty.

LOL! The Constitution protects us from the laws of nature. I don't think of nature as being some benevolent maternal force. It's violent, unpredictable, and merciless.

Anyway, I think this philisophy 101 stuff is too far out of mainstream America's political conversations to be helpful to the cause. I think adding it to the mission statement to placate the anarchists would create more problems than it solved.

It's not that hard. We support Constitutional law as the law of the land. Personally I don't want to endlessly debate its shortcomings unless the context is that of amending it toward perfection.

I don't care about any other philosophy. I went through all this in my 20's too, but I'm done with it now.

[ClayTrainor]

.

LOL! The Constitution protects us from the laws of nature. I don't think of nature as being some benevolent maternal force. It's violent, unpredictable, and merciless.

And within all this violence and unpredictability, nature somehow created you, and somehow are able to operate and function within nature.

What could possibly give you that "right"? Certainly not a natural right of any kind, right? ;)

May i ask what forces of nature the constitution is protecting you from, that it's not protecting my Canadian ass from?



Anyway, I think this philisophy 101 stuff is too far out of mainstream America's political conversations to be helpful to the cause. I think adding it to the mission statement to placate the anarchists would create more problems than it solved.


Fair enough, i disagree, but i'm not sure i feel like getting back into this topic right now, haha.


It's not that hard. We support Constitutional law as the law of the land. Personally I don't want to endlessly debate its shortcomings unless the context is that of amending it toward perfection.


If you don't understand your flaws, you'll never get on the path to a real solution.


I don't care about any other philosophy. I went through all this in my 20's too, but I'm done with it now.

I hear ya, i'm still in my 20's, i suppose i'm trying to find myself still. I think this fight for liberty and our activism is based on natural law, and the constitution illustrates the importance of Natural Law, by illustrating the original intent of the founders.

They did somethign right, that much is clear, but why was it right? :)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Freedom is our core motivation. The Constitution is a tool to accomplish it.

I just fell out of my chair.

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/BF0983-001.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=5A6A9C4F96D8C4AE94460F01A91F56BB6529E79887609E4F

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Can somebody explain Natural Law and Natural Rights, their difference and basic ideas? I have a vague idea of what it all means, but I haven't really studied up on it well.

But I do think there is way too much focus on the Constitution as infallible. When we argue just for the Constitution it makes it way too easy for those who want to discard it because it is 'anachronistic' seem more legitimate.

The classic RPF an/cap - statist debates we're ramped up again semi-recently with a call to oust some people. Fallout is still occurring from that last round. Nothing new.

[LibertyEagle]

I just fell out of my chair.



Why? I've never said anything any different.

[newbitech]

//

[RedStripe]

Wait - a motivation for liberty?

Liberty is a motivation in-and-of itself.

I seek liberty for the sake of having liberty!

[newbitech]

Can somebody explain Natural Law and Natural Rights, their difference and basic ideas? I have a vague idea of what it all means, but I haven't really studied up on it well.

But I do think there is way too much focus on the Constitution as infallible. When we argue just for the Constitution it makes it way too easy for those who want to discard it because it is 'anachronistic' seem more legitimate.

you think there is too much focus on the Constitution being infallible? I have yet to see anyone seriously make that argument in these forums.

That argument is a red herring getting tossed around by people who reject any form of ruler. They see the Constitution as an enabling document for evil statist rulers when in fact it was created as just the opposite.

Humans are fallible and so is anything they create. No one is arguing "just for" the Constitution as you say. We argue that we must defend the Constitution because it is the law. Clearly the people causing the havoc in our country at the higher levels of power have no regard for the law. We must hold them accountable to this law. This is a written law and it is the law that those rulers have simultaneously forced upon us and disregarded. So the choice is, do we become like our rulers and disregard the law? Or do we hold our rulers accountable to that law?

Natural Law is an unwritten law. The founders understood that in order to protect individual liberties and freedom, we needed to create a written law. This written law was based on centuries of law before it which was and is ultimately based on natural law. The written law is created specifically to protect individuals from rulers who would disregard both natural and written law. THE ONLY REASON WE ARE NOT ALL SLAVES TO TYRANNY IS BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Now some people here might fancy everyone as philosophical slaves and that may be true to a certain extent. Slaves are powerless, we the people of the United States are not. We have been backed into that corner and many of us are still sleeping. However, we are not powerless.

The founders understood the anachronistic argument. This is why an amendment process was built into the Constitution. But these amendments cannot be made for trivial matters. Yet a lot has happened in the last 200 years that I and many others calling themselves the Constitutionalist lean towards Amendment. I think more importantly tho, is the power to repeal. I hope that helps you a little with my view. I am a defender of the Constitution and I plan on holding my rulers accountable to it. Especially those who have sworn oath to defend it.

[ClayTrainor]

Wait - a motivation for liberty?

Liberty is a motivation in-and-of itself.

I seek liberty for the sake of having liberty!

probably should've used the word "foundation". Lazy writing, my bad :o

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

you think there is too much focus on the Constitution being infallible? I have yet to see anyone seriously make that argument in these forums.

That argument is a red herring getting tossed around by people who reject any form of ruler. They see the Constitution as an enabling document for evil statist rulers when in fact it was created as just the opposite.

Humans are fallible and so is anything they create. No one is arguing "just for" the Constitution as you say. We argue that we must defend the Constitution because it is the law. Clearly the people causing the havoc in our country at the higher levels of power have no regard for the law. We must hold them accountable to this law. This is a written law and it is the law that those rulers have simultaneously forced upon us and disregarded. So the choice is, do we become like our rulers and disregard the law? Or do we hold our rulers accountable to that law?

Natural Law is an unwritten law. The founders understood that in order to protect individual liberties and freedom, we needed to create a written law. This written law was based on centuries of law before it which was and is ultimately based on natural law. The written law is created specifically to protect individuals from rulers who would disregard both natural and written law. THE ONLY REASON WE ARE NOT ALL SLAVES TO TYRANNY IS BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Now some people here might fancy everyone as philosophical slaves and that may be true to a certain extent. Slaves are powerless, we the people of the United States are not. We have been backed into that corner and many of us are still sleeping. However, we are not powerless.

The founders understood the anachronistic argument. This is why an amendment process was built into the Constitution. But these amendments cannot be made for trivial matters. Yet a lot has happened in the last 200 years that I and many others calling themselves the Constitutionalist lean towards Amendment. I think more importantly tho, is the power to repeal. I hope that helps you a little with my view. I am a defender of the Constitution and I plan on holding my rulers accountable to it. Especially those who have sworn oath to defend it.

You mean, we aren't slaves now? Those who are in the majority can and do, take the rights from the minority. What right of self-defense do I have? If I defend myself I get thrown in jail. If I use civil disobedience, I get thrown in jail. Look at Irwin Schiff. I am at the mercy of other people. Is that not slavery? Am I sovereign, or aren't I?

Now, I'm all for getting back to the roots of the Constitution, but I have yet to have one Constitutionalist give me a reason why, once we get back to the roots, that the same path we took for the last 100 years, won't happen again? The tools of the Constitution, is the institution of the State itself, not what is written on the document. They all ready have all the infrastructure in place. I argue for An-Cap on the basis that, the Statists have no tools to use. Law, is natural law, and whatever else voluntary law that any groups or associations create. I have the right to self-defense, of private property, and I make my own law, on my own property. Or, I can choose to join a Confederacy, or group, and come under their law if I so choose for whatever benefits I may receive. In all events, we are all connected by Economics. By self-interests. Game theory is one part of the equation. Human nature being another. Out of what seems chaos, comes order.

Secondly, what makes you think we would be in a Tyranny (like we aren't now), without the Constitution? Have you seen the Ben Franklin quote flying around? We were much freer, and better off under the Articles of Confederation than with the Constitution. I don't see people around here arguing for that however, even though they like the idea of de-centralization, and of more sovereignty. I see a lot of duplicity.

Another point. You say the Constitution was created as a limiter of power. Well, I think we can all see it didn't prevent that whatsoever, and humans being humans, and language being language, the current Statists interpret the document their own way. So, I would contend, that the document is the inhibitor and they use it to grow their own power.

There's a difference between involuntary submission to written law, and voluntary agreement to law. There should be absolutely no law, but my own, on my own property. Do you agree? You, or I, alone are powerless. We only have any semblence of power, when we form a group. Even then, that power is derived from Natural Law, not Constitutionality. The Constitution merely, enumerates Natural Law to the extent that it does, we don't derive our rights from the Constitution.

Yet, for your beloved Amendment process we have the 16th Amendment. I too am a defender of the Constitution, the parts that promote Natural Law, Private Property, etc. I used to be a hard-core Constitutionalist, but as I began to study history, read more Economics, and get into morality and philosophy more in-depth, I found out that a strict adherence to the Constitution is in direct competition with liberty and freedom. Contrary to what you hear, Government is not a necessary evil, it is an unneccessary evil. Even Ben Franklin understood this.

The Constitution couldn't even stop one of the most atrocious pieces of American History a mere 10 years after it's inception; the Alien and Sedition Acts. If, the Founder's themselves could not adhere to the document they created, what makes you think ANYONE can?

The other thing that throws me off from Constitutionalists, especially the candidates who call themselves Constitutionalists (Even though I support them, donate to them, and volunteer for them, because they are the ones advocating for the most reduction of Government), is that I have yet to hear any of them talk about amending or clarifying the Constitution so as to leave as little possible room for interpretation. Why not clarify the 2nd amendment? Repel the 16th Amendment? Add an amendment that makes the penalty for willfull violation of the Constitution death? Add an amendment that enumerates secession? It is not enough to just go back to the Constitution roots, because all the tools for it's Statist use is still there, and will be used in the future, again. I think it's a travesty to post-pone the tyranny, to another generation like the Founder's did to us.

I want to end the tools that the tyrants use. I know many Constitutionalists believe that the Constitution limits the power, and I used to be one of them, but, if it does, or if it has, why are we in the position we are in now? Human Nature. They have the tools to bribe people with our money. They have the tools of the law. They have the tools of the State; monopoly on force. They have the printing presses. They have legal tender laws. They have everything, and the Constitution either, indirectly, or directly allowed for this.

Now, all that said, I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTIONS ROOTS. Just like you. I however, want to once we get to that point, further liberty, further my sovereignty, and create an all voluntary society. If you want to continue to live under the Constitution, then so-be-it. Have at it. I want to be able to seceede from and remove myself from the United States. I want to become sovereign. I want my private property to be my own. I want to conduct trade, and commerce, with whom I choose under the contract I choose. I don't want involuntary taxation. I want the option to either voluntary accept the Constitution, or, not. In essence, I want to live in a voluntary society.

[LibertiORDeth]

Liberty is dependent upon natural law. If you don't respect the law of nature, you don't respect liberty

Then I obviously don't respect liberty.

[Aratus]

i think our semi-perfect constitution stems from the philosophy of natural law...
i simplified things by voting for "constitution" because i could not vote for both.


is it possble for my vote to be read as that i expect that our consititution is sufficiantly
natural law at least by the terms john locke understood things to work and function?
so as to imply much that is libertarian? if i am consistant and practical, i know must
vote my heart and i have? i know we live in a republic yet we desire true democracy!

[Dr.3D]

is it possble for my vote to be read as that i expect that our consititution is sufficiantly
natural law at least by the terms john locke understood things to work and function?
so as to imply much that is libertarian? if i am consistant and practical, i know must
vote my heart and i have? i know we live in a republic yet we desire true democracy!



There's a saying that goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." The more educated American will point out that we don't live in a true democracy, but rather in a democratic republic, or representative democracy. They apparently don't know the corollary of that old saying which states, "Representative democracy is when the flock elects a wolf to decide what's for dinner."

A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed.

Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy.

Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/lliberty_20050810.html

[Joe3113]

Freedom is our core motivation. The Constitution is a tool to accomplish it.


I think you are splitting hairs, Clay. The foundation of our movement is liberty. The Constitution is merely a tool in achieving it.

Isn't that what Conza consistently said?

[LibertyEagle]

Isn't that what Conza consistently said?

I agreed with a lot that Conza said, actually. He's not the only one who has read books from Mises, you know.

[Joe3113]

I agreed with a lot that Conza said, actually.

What would you call someone who is for self government?


He's not the only one who has read books from Mises, you know.

Really? That's nice. I myself tend to disagree with them on animal rights. What books have you read from Mises.org?