Excellent article - ignore the title and read the substance

[Original_Intent]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=173561


Never mind that only a handful of men signed the Constitution. This was a new declaration, but not a declaration of independence. Rather, is was a declaration that proclaimed that all persons living within a certain geographical area were, in fact, not free … a declaration that proclaimed them to be bound by the United States Constitution.

Don't get me wrong. The Constitution is a brilliant document and, I believe, well-intended. With the exception of black slaves and Native Americans, it seems clear that most of the signers saw it as a document that would protect the rights and freedom of the inhabitants of the Colonies.

But human nature being what it is, a democracy or democratic republic is destined – through an "excess of democracy" – to move toward an all-powerful central government that tyrannizes its citizens. In their writing of the Constitution, the founders worked hard to protect against such an eventuality, but no document can be a foolproof deterrent to tyranny.



Figured the an-caps esp would love this.

[tremendoustie]

Great article -- I encourage people to read the whole thing. Yes, I view the constitution as a great evolution, over what had come before (monarchy), although a devolution from the freedom that had existed after the revolution. Ultimately, however well intended by some, it was flawed, and it's time we evolve further.

I find this also enlightening:


after the Constitution went into effect in the summer of 1788, it took only a decade for Congress, under John Adams, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government "through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion."Make no mistake about it, many of the "founders" were tyrants, or became tyrants -- although many, like Jefferson, seem to have really valued freedom.

In 1869, Lysander Spooner (who had had his successful private mail delivery service shut down by government, to protect the USPS monopoly) pointed out some of the logical flaws with supposing the constitution can take rights from individuals and give them to government: http://jim.com/treason.htm.

[Number19]

Ringer is wrong in placing emphasis on what happens between now and November, without mentioning the 2011 Congress. What comes out of the new Congress is far more crucial to our future than anything likely to occur during the remaining part of this Congress. Republicans have to stay vigilant and maintain their filibuster, but for the most part, Obama and his gang of thugs are contained for the remaining part of this year. The newly elected Republicans - the ones elected on a Tea Party agenda - are going to have to take the battle to a new level. There will be immense pressure to "compromise" and to "work with Obama". It's unlikely the Republicans will have a veto proof majority. Will they shut the government down? Remember the 1995 government shut down and budget fight with the Clinton Administration.

[tremendoustie]

Ringer is wrong in placing emphasis on what happens between now and November, without mentioning the 2011 Congress. What comes out of the new Congress is far more crucial to our future than anything likely to occur during the remaining part of this Congress. Republicans have to stay vigilant and maintain their filibuster, but for the most part, Obama and his gang of thugs are contained for the remaining part of this year. The newly elected Republicans - the ones elected on a Tea Party agenda - are going to have to take the battle to a new level. There will be immense pressure to "compromise" and to "work with Obama". It's unlikely the Republicans will have a veto proof majority. Will they shut the government down? Remember the 1995 government shut down and budget fight with the Clinton Administration.

I hope so. I hope it's absolute gridlock in DC. Maybe they'll stop screwing the country up.

Put a glass bubble over DC, and they'd be back in the trees throwing bananas and feces within months. The most moronic, backwards, yet arrogant people in the country somehow continue to get themselves elected.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Regardless of any appreciation I have for the generations in 1776 and the accomplishments those generations achieved for their own well being two facts remain.

1. No document can prevent tyranny and the Constitution has failed to limit government.

2. In the past 230+ years the liberty philosophy has vastly improved since 1776 due to evolution of thought.

I do not want to move liberty backwards. I want to advance it.

[Travlyr]

Regardless of any appreciation I have for the generations in 1776 and the accomplishments those generations achieved for their own well being two facts remain.

1. No document can prevent tyranny and the Constitution has failed to limit government.
I am not fully convinced of this. Just because documents have failed in the past does not mean that agreements of the future are subject to the same demise.


2. In the past 230+ years the liberty philosophy has vastly improved since 1776 due to evolution of thought.

I do not want to move liberty backwards. I want to advance it.

With all the information we have at our fingertips we should be able to advance liberty. However, I do not see how it can be done without a state... or several states.

Most people have never thought about how to live without a ruler and couldn't live without someone in charge of them.
Certain rules are important.
Violation of the rights of others is a biggie.
100% self-ownership is okay, but 100% self-dependence is a myth. I pollute your world and you pollute mine. I needed help as a child. I'll need help as I age.
Where and how do we draw the lines without rules?

[Number19]

Regardless of any appreciation I have for the generations in 1776 and the accomplishments those generations achieved for their own well being two facts remain.

1. No document can prevent tyranny and the Constitution has failed to limit government...The Constitution performed admirably for 125, or so, years.

But here is what Franklin said in a speech to the Constitutional Convention on june 28, 1787:
" In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other. "Quite, prophetic.

[tremendoustie]

With all the information we have at our fingertips we should be able to advance liberty. However, I do not see how it can be done without a state... or several states.

Most people have never thought about how to live without a ruler and couldn't live without someone in charge of them.



We will need to remedy this. In fact, we'll need to remedy this even if we just want a minarchy.




2.Certain rules are important


I agree. No central state doesn't mean no rules. We need rules against harming other persons or property, and we need to enforce those rules. But, in doing so, we shouldn't use aggressive violence ourselves. For example, we shouldn't steal from people in order to hire people to stop thieves.



Violation of the rights of others is a biggie.


Absolutely. And, I don't think it's necessary to violate the rights of others ourselves, in order to stop those who would violate the rights of others. We need to oppose all such abuse, by individuals, or by the state.



100% self-ownership is okay, but 100% self-dependence is a myth.


Certainly! I enjoy living in society, trading with others, and relying on them. I wouldn't want to be some totally independent hermit.

It's aggressive violence/coercion that's the problem, not interdependence.



I pollute your world and you pollute mine.


If I significantly pollute your property, I should make restitution.



I needed help as a child.


I certainly agree that parents should help their kids. If they can't or won't, they should give them up for adoption.



I'll need help as I age.


Certainly, and I believe your friends and family should help you :). Or charity, if it becomes necessary.



Where and how do we draw the lines without rules?

We should have rules. But rules are not the same as rulers. For example, everyone is supposed to recognize that the constitution restricts the appropriate behaviors of government. Ideally, we should recognize that if the government crosses those boundaries, its actions are immoral and illegal.

If you want to think about it this way, I'm suggesting that we have a constituton that restricts the governent, and any organization, from using agressive force/violence. Any person or organization behaving this way is not behaving legitimately, and should be stopped.

Society, through protection agencies (aka police), arbiters (aka courts), etc, should enforce these basic principles. In order to get to that point, we need to have a moral awakening in this country -- people need to take a stand -- just as they'd need to take a stand to restore the constitution.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=173561



Figured the an-caps esp would love this.

The Declaration of Independence is our primary formal document because it nullifies our marriage to a rightful ordained king. In that decree, a bipartisan Truth (truths that reduce down to one) is declared to be known, not in the mind of all people, great and small, but in their collective conscience.

Check mate.

Please, quit acting like a European. Try going fishing. There are some politics that we can talk about while doing so, like talking about pretty women, but nothing about manipulating the people towards that which is in their best interest. That is not allowed because such nonsense tends to rock the fishing boat.

[TexanRudeBoy]

The Constitution performed admirably for 125, or so, years.

Well....except for that huge hiccup in the 1860's.........

[tremendoustie]

The Constitution performed admirably for 125, or so, years.


Not really, to be frank. Consider, among other things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts


While the Alien and Sedition Laws were in force, John Adams, en route from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Quincy, Massachusetts, stopped in Newark, New Jersey, where he was greeted by a crowd and by a committee that saluted him by firing a cannon. A bystander said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his ass." Luther Baldwin was indicted for replying that he did not care "if they fired through his a**." He was convicted in the federal court for speaking "sedicious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States" and fined, assessed court costs and expenses, and placed in jail until the fine and fees were paid.
And:


In November 1798, David Brown (http://www.answers.com/topic/david-brown-dedham) led a group in Dedham, Massachusetts in setting up a liberty pole (http://www.answers.com/topic/liberty-pole) with the words, "No Stamp Act (http://www.answers.com/topic/stamp-act-1765), No Sedition Act, No Alien Bills, No Land Tax, downfall to the Tyrants of America; peace and retirement to the President; Long Live the Vice President,"[5] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-Perilous-4)[6] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-5)[7] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-6) referring to then-President John Adams (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-adams) and Vice President Thomas Jefferson (http://www.answers.com/topic/thomas-jefferson). Brown was arrested in Andover, Massachusetts (http://www.answers.com/topic/andover-massachusetts), but because he could not afford the $4,000 bail, he was taken to Salem (http://www.answers.com/topic/salem-massachusetts) for trial.[8] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-American-7) Brown was tried in June 1799.[5] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-Perilous-4) Brown wanted to plead guilty but Justice Samuel Chase (http://www.answers.com/topic/samuel-chase) wanted him to name everybody who had helped him or who subscribed to his writings.[5] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-Perilous-4) Brown refused, was fined $480,[8] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-American-7)[9] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-8) and sentenced to eighteen months in prison, the most severe sentence then imposed under the Alien and Sedition Acts.[5] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-Perilous-4)[8] (http://www.answers.com/topic/alien-and-sedition-acts#cite_note-American-7)Many other journalists, political opponents, etc, were arrested simply for opposing the administration's policies.

Then there's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

If you want to go later, Lincoln was as big a tyrant has has ever existed in this country. He suspended Habeus Corpus, threw journalists who disagreed with him in jail, etc.

A lot of the "founders" were tyrants, when it came to them weilding the reigns of power themselves. That's the plain truth.

[BuddyRey]

Great article. Thanks for sharing!

[BuddyRey]

//

[BlackTerrel]

Don't get me wrong. The Constitution is a brilliant document and, I believe, well-intended. With the exception of black slaves and Native Americans, it seems clear that most of the signers saw it as a document that would protect the rights and freedom of the inhabitants of the Colonies.

That's a pretty big exception. And I think you would add women to that exception as well.

[heavenlyboy34]

Great article -- I encourage people to read the whole thing. Yes, I view the constitution as a great evolution, over what had come before (monarchy), although a devolution from the freedom that had existed after the revolution. Ultimately, however well intended by some, it was flawed, and it's time we evolve further.

I find this also enlightening:

Make no mistake about it, many of the "founders" were tyrants, or became tyrants -- although many, like Jefferson, seem to have really valued freedom.

In 1869, Lysander Spooner (who had had his successful private mail delivery service shut down by government, to protect the USPS monopoly) pointed out some of the logical flaws with supposing the constitution can take rights from individuals and give them to government: http://jim.com/treason.htm.


Agreed. Everyone should read that Spooner piece as well as "Constitution of No Authority". They're eye-openers for sure. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Great article. Thanks for sharing!

+10000000 :cool:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Regardless of any appreciation I have for the generations in 1776 and the accomplishments those generations achieved for their own well being two facts remain.

1. No document can prevent tyranny and the Constitution has failed to limit government.

2. In the past 230+ years the liberty philosophy has vastly improved since 1776 due to evolution of thought.

I do not want to move liberty backwards. I want to advance it.

The greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations meaning that as our Founding Fathers added just a little onto what they inherited from their ancestors, so, should we carefully add onto what we inherited from them. Certainly, tyranny is making the argument today that the present chaos is in need of great change.