Never Forget Our Matchless Constitution: Cornerstone of the Republic

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/US_9_10/2620-coverstory.jpg (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/tna/subscriptions/1-year-standard-subscription.html)
The New American Magazine on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-New-American-Magazine/146909368666979)



What is not mentioned as often, in fact, what is nearly never mentioned, in conjunction with the Tea Party is the Constitution. What scant attention the media or pundits pay to the Constitution typically comes in the form of derision of those who revere that document and are determined to see it re-enshrined as the supreme law of our republic. by Joe Wolverton II


Never Forget Our Matchless Constitution: Cornerstone of the Republic (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/4749-wither-the-constitution)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 01 October 2010

[fedup100]

Matchless my ass, it was shredded and burned in the last 10 years and we now have a police state and an illegal alien in the white house.

[nate895]

If it is matchless, then even the "matchless" is a near total failure.

Why should I support a failure?

[phill4paul]

Matchless my ass, it was shredded and burned in the last 10 years and we now have a police state and an illegal alien in the white house.

It is only a pronouncement on a piece of paper. Without the will of the people to enforce it then it is nothing. If it was shredded and burned then it is because the will of the people has failed. Not because of the document and what was written.

[nate895]

It is only a pronouncement on a piece of paper. Without the will of the people to enforce it then it is nothing. If it was shredded and burned then it is because the will of the people has failed. Not because of the document and what was written.

What is this "will of the people" you speak of?

[robert68]

..

[Dr.3D]

What is this "will of the people" you speak of?
The people have to be willing to enforce what is written on that piece of paper or it is indeed worthless.

[nate895]

The people have to be willing to enforce what is written on that piece of paper or it is indeed worthless.

Maybe true. There still is no "will of the people." If there was, our elections would be unanimous.

[Dr.3D]

Maybe true. There still is no "will of the people." If there was, our elections would be unanimous.

If that is the case, then there never was a will of the people.
There are always going to be those who don't understand what they are voting for, and they are the ones making mistakes.

[heavenlyboy34]

Matchless my ass, it was shredded and burned in the last 10 years and we now have a police state and an illegal alien in the white house.

Long before that, but an accurate point nonetheless.

[heavenlyboy34]

The people have to be willing to enforce what is written on that piece of paper or it is indeed worthless.


Of all the threads on this topic, no Constitutionalist has presented a reasonable solution to the problem of enforcement. Perhaps you would like to try sometime in a new thread? I'd be amused at that. :)

[Dr.3D]

Of all the threads on this topic, no Constitutionalist has presented a reasonable solution to the problem of enforcement. Perhaps you would like to try sometime in a new thread? I'd be amused at that. :)

How about you try doing that for my amusement?

[nate895]

If that is the case, then there never was a will of the people.
There are always going to be those who don't understand what they are voting for, and they are the ones making mistakes.

Yes, there never was a "will of the people." The "will of the people" is a myth of modern democracies and democratic republics.

[Pericles]

Of all the threads on this topic, no Constitutionalist has presented a reasonable solution to the problem of enforcement. Perhaps you would like to try sometime in a new thread? I'd be amused at that. :)

Did you expect the Constitution to do the job Americans won't do?

[Carson]

I would think more of a foundation than a cornerstone.

[Carson]

Of all the threads on this topic, no Constitutionalist has presented a reasonable solution to the problem of enforcement. Perhaps you would like to try sometime in a new thread? I'd be amused at that. :)

I remember it being explained that it is the duty of the people to see that The United States Constitution is upheld.

I can't remember the document it was written in at the moment, or can I remember any limitations for carrying the duty out.



It was pointed out by a great teacher in my junior high school. I found it once since then but at the moment I am at a loss.

Anyone?

[Sola_Fide]

Either the Constitution has authorized our present tyrannical government or it has been powerless to stop.it. I think that is a pretty unassailable argument.


But as RP says, the important principle is the rule of law. If the Constitution is our rule, we should either follow it or change it.

[nate895]

Either the Constitution has authorized our present tyrannical government or it has been powerless to stop.it. I think that is a pretty unassailable argument.


But as RP says, the important principle is the rule of law. If the Constitution is our rule, we should either follow it or change it.

I think the question to be asked is: What is the best way to uphold the rule of law? I think democracy has little to do with it.

[Dr.3D]

Either the Constitution has authorized our present tyrannical government or it has been powerless to stop.it. I think that is a pretty unassailable argument.


But as RP says, the important principle is the rule of law. If the Constitution is our rule, we should either follow it or change it.

Here is a pretty good article about how to correct the problems we have with the Constitution.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/what-is-the-u-s-constitution/

[FrankRep]

If it is matchless, then even the "matchless" is a near total failure.

Why should I support a failure?

Does Ron Paul Forums support the Constitution any more? Last time I checked Ron Paul is the "Champion of the Constitution."

[Rancher]

Does Ron Paul Forums support the Constitution any more? Last time I checked Ron Paul is the "Champion of the Constitution."

Yes, I support the U.S. Constitution. I've read it and studied it. It's my guess that most of the people that don't support it haven't even read it.

[heavenlyboy34]

Did you expect the Constitution to do the job Americans won't do?

Well, this is the claim of Constitutionalists, so yes. (though I don't believe it will happen)

[heavenlyboy34]

Yes, I support the U.S. Constitution. I've read it and studied it. It's my guess that most of the people that don't support it haven't even read it.

I have. I have a copy in my desk, in fact, as well as the Federalist papers. I know my enemies. ;) All the anti-Constitutionalists I know of are familiar with the document. Why do you think that "most of the people that don't support it haven't even read it"?

[FrankRep]

I have. I have a copy in my desk, in fact, as well as the Federalist papers. I know my enemies. ;)

Constitutionalists, like Ron Paul, are your enemies?

[heavenlyboy34]

Constitutionalists, like Ron Paul, are your enemies?

No, Federalists are. Ron Paul is better than the Federalists on any issue you care to name. Besides, my previous comment was a play on the cliche "know thy enemy". (I try to bring humor to dry subjects like this when I can) I wouldn't say Constitutionalists are "enemies" per se, but simply adherents to a failed system who need to learn about true freedom.

[Sola_Fide]

No, Federalists are. Ron Paul is better than the Federalists on any issue you care to name. Besides, my previous comment was a play on the cliche "know thy enemy". (I try to bring humor to dry subjects like this when I can) I wouldn't say Constitutionalists are "enemies" per se, but simply adherents to a failed system who need to learn about true freedom.


HB,

How can communism be compatible or exist in a volutaryist system? It may be a stupid question, but just describe to me how it would look like.

[heavenlyboy34]

HB,

How can communism be compatible or exist in a volutaryist system? It may be a stupid question, but just describe to me how it would look like.

It's not a stupid question, and I'm glad you asked. Communism isn't voluntaryist per se, but a Voluntaryist society would have room for communists. The difference is that in a Voluntaryist society, Communists wouldn't have the power of the State behind them. They would have to persuade people to join them.

What's interesting is how Communism has changed in its transit to the West. In the old USSR, Lenin called Soviet Communism "Soviet Power plus electrification of the country". This is a truly "progressive" view, in that it somewhat supports industrialization and progress towards a better society. Western communists reverse this with their "Green Socialism" and other "backwardization" ideals. /end off-topic rant

At any rate, it's important to note that in a voluntary society, property serves as boundaries of order (to borrow Shaffer's term). This notion of private property recognition (including self-ownership) is a civilizing factor, and promotes order. Regimism, on the other hand, promotes top-down systems of power, and disorder (usually in the long run, but often in the short run as well).

Hope that clarifies things. :)

[Fredom101]

I think the OP meant to say, it was set on fire with a lighter many years ago, it was a matchless burning of the constitution. ;)

[Sola_Fide]

It's not a stupid question, and I'm glad you asked. Communism isn't voluntaryist per se, but a Voluntaryist society would have room for communists. The difference is that in a Voluntaryist society, Communists wouldn't have the power of the State behind them. They would have to persuade people to join them.

What's interesting is how Communism has changed in its transit to the West. In the old USSR, Lenin called Soviet Communism "Soviet Power plus electrification of the country". This is a truly "progressive" view, in that it somewhat supports industrialization and progress towards a better society. Western communists reverse this with their "Green Socialism" and other "backwardization" ideals. /end off-topic rant

At any rate, it's important to note that in a voluntary society, property serves as boundaries of order (to borrow Shaffer's term). This notion of private property recognition (including self-ownership) is a civilizing factor, and promotes order. Regimism, on the other hand, promotes top-down systems of power, and disorder (usually in the long run, but often in the short run as well).

Hope that clarifies things. :)



Definitely...thanks man.

[osan]

In a vacuum, the Constitution is a great little document. In the real world it has proven gravely inadequate - but the fault doesn't lie there. How could it? That's like blaming a gun for the victim's demise. The fault rests in the hearts of men. Sloth, morbid greed, apathy... therein lay the roots of our demise as well as our salvation, if any is to be realized.

The Constitution is not the problem. We are the problem.

[heavenlyboy34]

In a vacuum, the Constitution is a great little document. In the real world it has proven gravely inadequate - but the fault doesn't lie there. How could it? That's like blaming a gun for the victim's demise. The fault rests in the hearts of men. Sloth, morbid greed, apathy... therein lay the roots of our demise as well as our salvation, if any is to be realized.

The Constitution is not the problem. We are the problem.

Again, you blame the victim. (a key rhetorical tool of the government religion) What makes you think "we" had anything to do with it? Libertarian-ish movements have been going on for decades, yet the State still grows. The Constitution is clearly not an impediment to tyranny, but a tool for it. You would be best advised to place the blame on the perpetrators, not the victims. After all, the DoI divorced American society from the absurdity of man-made tyranny-why reverse progress back towards tyranny?

[heavenlyboy34]

Maybe true. There still is no "will of the people." If there was, our elections would be unanimous.

You make many excellent points, my friend. :cool:

[klamath]

The constitution maybe badly failed blueprint for managing man's self distructive behavior but not nearly as failed as anarchy and communism that go completely contrary to human nature and have never even existed in human history and can never exist except in the dreams of men. Ah utopia!

[CCTelander]

In a vacuum, the Constitution is a great little document. In the real world it has proven gravely inadequate - but the fault doesn't lie there. How could it? That's like blaming a gun for the victim's demise. The fault rests in the hearts of men. Sloth, morbid greed, apathy... therein lay the roots of our demise as well as our salvation, if any is to be realized.

The Constitution is not the problem. We are the problem.


What's this "we" you speak of? Got a mouse in your pocket?

By all means, speak for yourself. Not for me.

I've been fighting against the expansion of government basically my entire life.

For most of that time I was a CONstitutionalist and did favor political action and solutions.

I've seen SEVERAL so-called "liberty movements," every one of them as impressive as the current one.

The most impressive one, even more so than the current, was the Reagan "revolution." Ronnie won in a landslide, if you recall. He won on promises to shrink government significantly, and even abolish some federal agencies.

As ALWAYS happens, and always will, when presumed "liberty candidates" get elected, none of it ever came to pass.

The government continued to grow larger, more intrusive, and spending continued to increase. The FED remains.

Naturally, all the current political junkies will declaim that Reagan wasn't "really" a liberty candidate, and we just need to get the right guys in there to fix everything.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard that lame excuse over the years. Apparently, few ever learn their lessons.

[heavenlyboy34]

The constitution maybe badly failed blueprint for managing man's self distructive behavior but not nearly as failed as anarchy and communism that go completely contrary to human nature and have never even existed in human history and can never exist except in the dreams of men. Ah utopia!

It's true that communism is a failure, but in regards to "anarchy", you're just repeating Statist propaganda about it. I'm not an anarchist myself, but you're being utterly unfair to the anarchist position. Compared side by side, constitutionalism is a far greater failure than anarchism. Compare the murder counts and amount of state theft/state redistribution of wealth, and you'll get it.

[klamath]

It's true that communism is a failure, but in regards to "anarchy", you're just repeating Statist propaganda about it. I'm not an anarchist myself, but you're being utterly unfair to the anarchist position. Compared side by side, constitutionalism is a far greater failure than anarchism. Compare the murder counts and amount of state theft/state redistribution of wealth, and you'll get it. Because an anarchist and communist state have never existed Getting either of those to exist would be about as sucessful as getting the south poles of a magnet to stick together. Can't argue with you about state collective murder. The only thing that comes close or maybe surpasses state murder, on a private level is abortion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Because an anarchist and communist state have never existed Getting either of those to exist would be about as sucessful as getting the south poles of a magnet to stick together. Can't argue with you about state collective murder. The only thing that comes close or maybe surpasses state murder, on a private level is abortion.


You think a communist state never existed? :eek::rolleyes: Ever heard of Cuba? The USSR?

"Anarchy" already exists all around you (unless you have an autocrat following you around in your house, etc.). So, yes, anarchy and communism have "coexisted". (they certainly did in the Soviet Union, or Solzhenitsyn could never have written his books) Not only is this a misunderstanding of anarchy, it's a terrible argument for government.

[klamath]

You think a communist state never existed? :eek::rolleyes: Ever heard of Cuba? The USSR?

"Anarchy" already exists all around you (unless you have an autocrat following you around in your house, etc.). So, yes, anarchy and communism have "coexisted". (they certainly did in the Soviet Union, or Solzhenitsyn could never have written his books) Not only is this a misunderstanding of anarchy, it's a terrible argument for government.

I didn't say coexist. I said exist.
What was called communism. None of those countries ever had real idealogical communism. All for one one for all didn't exist. In true communism there is no need for government- people just work with and for each other and don't try and get ahead of their fellow man. Against the human organisms nature. The same can be said about anarchy. If all humans just worked and traded, for each of their own individual good and never tried to take a shortcut for ther personal good anarchy would work. Again against human nature.
The family unit is the closest to communism on a micro scale and the mountain men of early American west are the closest to anarchy on a microscale.

[JoshLowry]

Does Ron Paul Forums support the Constitution any more? Last time I checked Ron Paul is the "Champion of the Constitution."

Yes, a large percentage of the voluntaryists that were woken up by Ron Paul have a hard time seeing the benefit in politics.

I've told them countless times to not discourage political activism, but after reading this thread most don't really seem to care.

I do not want you on this site if you are going to discourage political activism.

If you get banned after today, I'm going to point you to our forum guidelines and that's it.




As ALWAYS happens, and always will, when presumed "liberty candidates" get elected, none of it ever came to pass.

The government continued to grow larger, more intrusive, and spending continued to increase. The FED remains.

Naturally, all the current political junkies will declaim that Reagan wasn't "really" a liberty candidate, and we just need to get the right guys in there to fix everything.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard that lame excuse over the years. Apparently, few ever learn their lessons.

Why were our founders able to resist the temptation? And Ron Paul?

[FrankRep]

....

[erowe1]

Are you threatening to BAN me for DEFENDING the Constitution on Ron Paul Forums?

He used "you" generically, referring to voluntarists who might discourage political action, not you.

That said, I've never heard Ron Paul defend the Constitution. And I think when Constitution lovers refer to his "champion of the Constitution" line to claim that he's in their camp, they're being gratuitous. He is the champion of the Constitution in that he is practically unique among politicians in supporting a reduction of the federal government to a scope that would fit within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. But for him, the Constitution is a tool, not something he reveres or even defends, and certainly not something he regards as matchless. I'm not so sure he even likes it that much.

It's a good strategy on his part to talk up the Constitution, and not the slightest but hypocritical. If a gang of thieves promised me one day only to steal 1% of my property and they later came back to steal 50%, you better believe that I'd remind them of the promise they made. But that wouldn't mean that I pretend they have any legitimate claim to that 1%, promise or not.

[JoshLowry]

He used "you" generically, referring to voluntarists who might discourage political action, not you.

That said, I've never heard Ron Paul defend the Constitution. And I think when Constitution lovers refer to his "champion of the Constitution" line to claim that he's in their camp, they're being gratuitous. He is the champion of the Constitution, in that he is practically unique among politicians in supporting a reduction of the federal government to a scope that would fit within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. But for him, the Constitution is a tool, not something he reveres or even defends, and certainly not something he regards as matchless. I'm not so sure he even likes it that much.

This FrankRep.

Well said erowe. I think we all support principles over pieces of paper.

[FrankRep]

Sorry Josh,

I misunderstood your statement. :)

[Pericles]

Well, this is the claim of Constitutionalists, so yes. (though I don't believe it will happen)

No, it is not the claim of Constitionalists, it is the straw man argument of an-cap , voluntaryists, et. al.

[FrankRep]

That said, I've never heard Ron Paul defend the Constitution. And I think when Constitution lovers refer to his "champion of the Constitution" line to claim that he's in their camp, they're being gratuitous.

Ron Paul calls himself the "Champion of the Constitution"
YouTube - Champion of the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBAyOwc32-s)



Ron Paul: Hello, my name is Ron Paul. I am a congressman from Texas serving in my tenth term. I am the champion of the Constitution.

[erowe1]

Ron Paul - Champion of the Constitution
YouTube - Champion of the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBAyOwc32-s)



Hello, my name is Ron Paul. I am a congressman from Texas serving in my tenth term. I am the champion of the Constitution.

Case in point.

[FrankRep]

Case in point.

Does calling yourself the "Champion of the Constitution" mean you defend the Constitution? If you don't defend the Constitution, you're certainly not the "champion" of it.

[erowe1]

Does calling yourself the "Champion of the Constitution" mean you defend the Constitution? If you don't defend the Constitution, you're certainly not the "champion" of it.

I already answered that, in the post you replied to when you illustrated my point by posting that video. You cut out the part where I explained it (thus justifying my use of the word "gratuitous").

[FrankRep]

I already answered that, in the post you replied to when you illustrated my point by posting that video. You cut out the part where I explained it (thus justifying my use of the word "gratuitous").

If you're making a distinction between a piece of paper called a "Constitution" and the principles defined by the founding fathers, then I can agree. When I say "Constitution" I mean the Founding Father's version of the Constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

Are you threatening to BAN me for DEFENDING the Constitution on Ron Paul Forums?

Not that I saw.

[FrankRep]

Not that I saw.
I misunderstood. :)

[klamath]

He used "you" generically, referring to voluntarists who might discourage political action, not you.

That said, I've never heard Ron Paul defend the Constitution. And I think when Constitution lovers refer to his "champion of the Constitution" line to claim that he's in their camp, they're being gratuitous. He is the champion of the Constitution in that he is practically unique among politicians in supporting a reduction of the federal government to a scope that would fit within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. But for him, the Constitution is a tool, not something he reveres or even defends, and certainly not something he regards as matchless. I'm not so sure he even likes it that much.

It's a good strategy on his part to talk up the Constitution, and not the slightest but hypocritical. If a gang of thieves promised me one day only to steal 1% of my property and they later came back to steal 50%, you better believe that I'd remind them of the promise they made. But that wouldn't mean that I pretend they have any legitimate claim to that 1%, promise or not.

Man how people put their ideas out and then claim it is RP's. Almost everything RP says he references it to the constitution. Every bill he must vote on he deliberates whether it is in agreement with the constitution. Show me one clip of RP saying the constitution is generally a bad document that "he doesn't even like that much". Not just part disagreement like the slavery clause and other clauses. Until you can do that I would say this is your beliefs that you are trying to attribute to RP in order to back up your own opinion .

[erowe1]

Man how people put their ideas out and then claim it is RP's. Almost everything RP says he references it to the constitution. Every bill he must vote on he deliberates whether it is in agreement with the constitution. Show me one clip of RP saying the constitution is generally a bad document that "he doesn't even like that much". Not just part disagreement like the slavery clause and other clauses. Until you can do that I would say this is your beliefs that you are trying to attribute to RP in order to back up your own opinion .

I could be wrong. I admit I haven't heard him spell it out the way I did. But based on the people from his inner circle who don't have the same political pressures put on them that he does, like Rockwell and North, and based on what he actually does and doesn't say, I think I'm right.

Your argument doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it does. And I think you and those who think like you are actually the ones creating Ron Paul in your own constitutional-revering images.

Ron Paul uses the Constitution as a negative criterion, not a positive one. Any time something is outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution he votes against it. He wants to reduce the power of the federal government to something that fits within the Constitution. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't want to keep reducing it once he got there (he surely would). Nor does it mean he supports things just because they are within those enumerated powers, nor that he thinks the Constitution gets it right, or ever did get it right, in the power that it does give the federal government.

[Sola_Fide]

Ive heard Ron say on a number of occassions that the Constitution is not perfect, but what is important is the rule of law.

[FrankRep]

Ive heard Ron say on a number of occassions that the Constitution is not perfect, but what is important is the rule of law.

No document created by man is perfect; we are naturally flawed by sin from the fall of man in the garden of Eden. I would agree on Ron Paul on this.

[klamath]

I could be wrong. I admit I haven't heard him spell it out the way I did. But based on the people from his inner circle who don't have the same political pressures put on them that he does, like Rockwell and North, and based on what he actually does and doesn't say, I think I'm right.

Your argument doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it does. And I think you and those who think like you are actually the ones creating Ron Paul in your own constitutional-revering images.

Ron Paul uses the Constitution as a negative criterion, not a positive one. Any time something is outside the enumerated powers of the Constitution he votes against it. He wants to reduce the power of the federal government to something that fits within the Constitution. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't want to keep reducing it once he got there (he surely would). Nor does it mean he supports things just because they are within those enumerated powers, nor that he thinks the Constitution gets it right, or ever did get it right, in the power that it does give the federal government.

No. I don't even worship the constitution. I am the first one to say it had its flaws such as documenting slavery allowing the the southern states to latter grab 3 million hostages and make a run for it.
I listen to what RP says and take him for his word and don't try and twist it into what I want him to mean. Yeaw he is really a secret socialist anarchist, a 911 truther, prochoice, environmentalist, evolutionist, Pot smoker and a violent revolutionary. You can tell because of who supports him hangs out with him and the infliction of his voice when he answers a question.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for the video of him saying the constitution is just a godda**** piece of paper that he will get rid of when he gets a chance.

[heavenlyboy34]

No. I don't even worship the constitution. I am the first one to say it had its flaws such as documenting slavery allowing the the southern states to latter grab 3 million hostages and make a run for it.
I listen to what RP says and take him for his word and don't try and twist it into what I want him to mean. Yeaw he is really a secret socialist anarchist, a 911 truther, prochoice, environmentalist, evolutionist, Pot smoker and a violent revolutionary. You can tell because of who supports him hangs out with him and the infliction of his voice when he answers a question.:rolleyes:
Still waiting for the video of him saying the constitution is just a godda**** piece of paper that he will get rid of when he gets a chance.

If you really believe this, I pity you. Even Jefferson thought that the States could nullify Federal action. This is not to justify slavery, obviously, but to rebut your cliched, charicature-like, incorrect version of southern secession.

[CCTelander]

Yes, a large percentage of the voluntaryists that were woken up by Ron Paul have a hard time seeing the benefit in politics.

I've told them countless times to not discourage political activism, but after reading this thread most don't really seem to care.

I do not want you on this site if you are going to discourage political activism.

If you get banned after today, I'm going to point you to our forum guidelines and that's it.



Why were our founders able to resist the temptation? And Ron Paul?


With all due respect, Josh, this is a pretty convenient dodge.

With one "breath" you implicitly threaten anyone expressing a certain position with a ban. With the next you go on to challenge that position and request a response.

How is one to respond?

It's an excellent tactic to win a debate online, if one is in a position to use it. But it doesn't do much as far as finding the most effective means to secure liberty.

Most everybody knows that if one is unwilling to question the efficacy of current actions, one is not likely to ever find out if they're working, or if there may be better actions one could be taking. Or simply adding those other actions to one's current efforts.

In any event, I can at least answer your questions without expressing "the view that must not be expressed."

Washington, along with Congress, implemented many of Hamilton's Federalist financial policies, including some much despised taxes. He was perfectly willing to use his power to send 13-15,000 federal troops (depending upon which source you consult) to enforce those taxes.

Hamilton lobbied for the summary execution of every whiskey rebel captured. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. However, many were imprisoned under fairly brutal conditions. Some died as a result. Others suffered serious health problems. Many were hit with heavy fines, and some went bankrupt as a result.

The Adams administration was responsible for the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. Surely you've heard of them?

Hundreds were imprisoned for the act of criticizing the government. Often under terrible conditions. Thousands more were handed hefty fines.

Bothy administrations also awarded a good number of lucrative government contracts, usually to businessmen with political connections.

Jefferson, who is widely considered among the most libertarian of presidents, was responsible for the Louisiana Purchase. A clear and obvious expansion of government beyond CONstitutional bounds. He also lobbied tirelessly for war with the Middle East, to solve the problem of the Barbary Pirates.

In spite of having introduced several political plans to end slavery, all of which failed, he kept his own slaves until his death.

These presidents, and many in the congresses that colluded with them, are still considered some of the most stalwart advocates of individual liberty in American History. While it could be argued that Washington, Adams, and many in Congress were not true liberty advocates, there is plenty of hard evidence to establish Jefferson at least as such.

Yet they ALL seriously abused their power once they'd secured it. Without exception.

I could go on listing examples all day.

Power tends to corrupt even the most stalwart among us. It's a fact of life.

As far as RP goes, as good as he is, just compare his publicly stated positions from the 80s to now. One example: Back then he was an advocate of free and open borders. His position now is far removed from that.

While I certainly believe that RP is an advocate of liberty, even he is not immune.

[torchbearer]

Maybe true. There still is no "will of the people." If there was, our elections would be unanimous.

the will of the people is to have an overlord and to be slaves to that overlord. no piece of paper will fix that. you can wish all you want for anarch-utopia, but it doesn't happen in the natural state of the world, and will not happen until everyone is educated to those points, understands them, and voluntarily practices them. don't hold your breathe waiting.
you will need an organization to protect your wealth from the hordes. whatever you call that organization, it will be a minarchist structure of local governance.

[AuH20]

the will of the people is to have an overlord and to be slaves to that overlord. no piece of paper will fix that. you can wish all you want for anarch-utopia, but it doesn't happen in the natural state of the world, and will not happen until everyone is educated to those points, understands them, and voluntarily practices them. don't hold your breathe waiting.
you will need an organization to protect your wealth from the hordes. whatever you call that organization, it will be a minarchist structure of local governance.

That's exactly why Benjamin Franklin stated that the Constitution was meant for a moral people.

[torchbearer]

That's exactly why Benjamin Franklin stated that the Constitution was meant for a moral people.

I think what he said in paraphrase was "the government will reflect the morality of the people" .

[LibertyEagle]

That said, I've never heard Ron Paul defend the Constitution.

Now you have.

"For the sake of the future of our Republic, it is important that we are not just consistent, but correctly consistent. We must defend not just the sections of the Constitution we find popular, we must defend the entire Constitution. Most importantly, we must jealously guard the philosophy of freedom upon which it is based. If we do, the sound we will hear is that of liberty once again loudly ringing across our land." Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, June 21, 1999"


And I think when Constitution lovers refer to his "champion of the Constitution" line to claim that he's in their camp, they're being gratuitous. He is the champion of the Constitution in that he is practically unique among politicians in supporting a reduction of the federal government to a scope that would fit within the enumerated powers of the Constitution. But for him, the Constitution is a tool, not something he reveres or even defends, and certainly not something he regards as matchless. I'm not so sure he even likes it that much.

I think most everyone who values the Founders' intent in the Constitution, thinks of it as a tool for individual liberty.


It's a good strategy on his part to talk up the Constitution, and not the slightest but hypocritical. If a gang of thieves promised me one day only to steal 1% of my property and they later came back to steal 50%, you better believe that I'd remind them of the promise they made. But that wouldn't mean that I pretend they have any legitimate claim to that 1%, promise or not.

I'm really not sure what your point is here. The Constitution alone is not an end in itself, no. But, the Founders' intent carry inherent principles of the proper role of government in a free society. Since so many Americans have at least some knowledge of this document, albeit vague, it hopefully can be used as a rallying point to wake up a lot of slumbering Americans. Americans are going to get more and more scared as time goes on and our economic woes deepen. It is in these times that many will run towards whatever solution promises them to reduce the pain they are in. And there are now and will be ever-increasing efforts coming from a variety of seeming directions to push them towards more government and less freedom. To me at least, the Constitution seems like a good rallying point to remind them of the principles that our Founders risked all when they created our Constitutional Republic.

But to say that Ron Paul does not promote or defend the Constitution is patently false.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=15

[FrankRep]

That's exactly why Benjamin Franklin stated that the Constitution was meant for a moral people.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

-- John Adams

[RedStripe]

"I put my political opponents in prison for expressing their views."

--John Adams

[torchbearer]

It was in a friendly debate recently, when I had considered the possibility that perhaps we should relinquish our rights, in favor of a more aggressive and active government. Perhaps we should be encouraging our Congress to dictate more policies, to facilitate more comforts, and to regulate more in general. Consider Benjamin Franklin's comment that: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Few would argue that our government and businesses are less corrupt or that our cities are less vicious than in Franklin's day. So, says the diplomat, we are in more need of masters.

Franklin says we will be in need of more masters, Adams says the Constitution is inadequate, so do we need a new form of government? Some claim that we need to oust everyone in Washington DC and start over with a group that will follow the correct role of government. The problem with such logic is that the same people will be back at home voting the same group back to Washington. Nothing would change.

[AuH20]

I think what he said in paraphrase was "the government will reflect the morality of the people" .

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

- Benjamin Franklin

[FrankRep]

"I put my political opponents in prison for expressing their views."

--John Adams

Source? Have any Documentation to verify your quote?

[torchbearer]

The real solution does not lie in sweeping out DC. The real solution does not even lie in an expansion of government. The real solution certainly does not lie with changing the Constitution. The real solution lies with, and has always lied with, the people. Only the morality of the people can make freedom work. Franklin and Adams did not argue for a new invasive government. They entreated us to be moral. They warned us to maintain religious commitment to virtue, so that we would have no need for oppressive masters. No system of government will offer liberty, if the community of individuals has forfeited morality. No system of government, however perfect, can offer a debauched citizenry freedom. Samuel Adams warned us about the dangers that accompany relinquished morality: “Though the form of our Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall. in reality. be the most abject slaves.”

[AuH20]

It was in a friendly debate recently, when I had considered the possibility that perhaps we should relinquish our rights, in favor of a more aggressive and active government. Perhaps we should be encouraging our Congress to dictate more policies, to facilitate more comforts, and to regulate more in general. Consider Benjamin Franklin's comment that: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Few would argue that our government and businesses are less corrupt or that our cities are less vicious than in Franklin's day. So, says the diplomat, we are in more need of masters.

Franklin says we will be in need of more masters, Adams says the Constitution is inadequate, so do we need a new form of government? Some claim that we need to oust everyone in Washington DC and start over with a group that will follow the correct role of government. The problem with such logic is that the same people will be back at home voting the same group back to Washington. Nothing would change.

I think you bring up a valid point. Could we all be anachronistic misfits from another time? The environment is so tainted and toxic that our challenge is extremely daunting to say the least. How do you explain the principles of liberty and self-determination to the current incarnation of Americans?

[torchbearer]

I think you bring up a valid point. Could we all be anachronistic misfits from another time? The environment is so tainted and toxic that our challenge is extremely daunting to say the least. How do you explain the principles of liberty and self-determination to the current incarnation of Americans?

This is why Ron always harps on education. he knows the country won't change until the people change.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Source? Have any Documentation to verify your quote?

OMG. This is just hilarious. Kudos to RedStripe on this one. :D

[FrankRep]

OMG. This is just hilarious. Kudos to RedStripe on this one. :D

RedStripe produced a FAKE quote and I called him out on it. Kudos for being a liar RedStripe.

[Galileo Galilei]

If it is matchless, then even the "matchless" is a near total failure.

Why should I support a failure?

The United States has been a total failure since 1787? Get real, dude.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

RedStripe produced a FAKE quote and I called him out on it. Kudos for being a liar RedStripe.

Are you really that daft? Do you not know basic American history? What do you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were.

[nate895]

I think you bring up a valid point. Could we all be anachronistic misfits from another time? The environment is so tainted and toxic that our challenge is extremely daunting to say the least. How do you explain the principles of liberty and self-determination to the current incarnation of Americans?

This is a huge problem I have been thinking about recently. I have always thought I was born in the wrong century, that I'd rather live in the 1850's minus racism. It is to the point that conservatives are radicals. The two terms once upon a time were contradictions. Nowadays, if you want to philosophically defend any sort of conservative values, you have to be a practical reactionary.

I think the only solution to this is to return to first principles, before we can even discuss politics. We need to have a real debate about philosophical foundations if we are ever going to have a hope of a virtuous society. This debate is sorely lacking anywhere. The debate nowadays is how to ripoff more people.

[nate895]

The United States has been a total failure since 1787? Get real, dude.

How you got that from my statement, I have no idea.

[RedStripe]

RedStripe produced a FAKE quote and I called him out on it. Kudos for being a liar RedStripe.

"I am a mass murderer."

--George W. Bush


*waits for Frank-"Sherlock"-Rep to do a thorough investigation and expose the forgery*

[torchbearer]

"I am a mass murderer."

--George W. Bush


*waits for Frank-"Sherlock"-Rep to do a thorough investigation and expose the forgery*

behind closed door quote.

[LibertyEagle]

Jesus Christ, we don't need to worry about enemies from without, we have them right here on this forum. So instead of strategizing about how to bring other Republicans over to Ron Paul's views, we're sitting here constantly dealing with Constitution-haters, not to mention members who want to see America dissolved and just today, a rather long-time member announced his goal is to "undermine the system" until we had something akin to the French Revolution right here in the U.S.. Might sound dandy, until you learn that the French Revolution was led by Jacobin socialist/communist assholes. So, I don't think it is too wise to be hoping and wishing, much less trying to undermine, to achieve such a goal.

It is pretty disgraceful that some are using a forum named after Ron Paul to push their own personal agendas and don't seem to care one iota that they are promoting things that stand in direct opposition to Ron Paul's beliefs.

Just my 2 cents.

[FrankRep]

Are you really that daft? Do you not know basic American history? What do you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were.

I know the Alien and Sedition Acts, but RedStripe still produced a FAKE quote.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I know the Alien and Sedition Acts, but RedStripe still produced a FAKE quote.

You are missing the elegance and point of what RedStripe is doing here....

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, there never was a "will of the people." The "will of the people" is a myth of modern democracies and democratic republics.

right. The will of the people never rose up and ousted the British military empire. Everything is a myth.

[Galileo Galilei]

Either the Constitution has authorized our present tyrannical government or it has been powerless to stop.it. I think that is a pretty unassailable argument.


But as RP says, the important principle is the rule of law. If the Constitution is our rule, we should either follow it or change it.

the present tyrannical government was created by the STATES in 1913.

[nate895]

right. The will of the people never rose up and ousted the British military empire. Everything is a myth.

People rose up and defeated the British, yes. How that implies a collective "will of the people" I don't know. There were loyalists, lots of them actually, you know. Are you suggesting loyalists aren't people?

[LibertyEagle]

The United States has been a total failure since 1787? Get real, dude.

Are you kidding me? !!!

How's your big screen tv, dude? How about that new cell phone? And that new game system? How many cars does your family have? In your young life, have you worried much about where your next meal was coming from? Been worrying much about flapping your gums about most any damn thing you wanted to say?

I know that's not all there is, but to say that the U.S. has been a failure is absolutely ludicrous!! What happened is the American people quit minding the store, so to speak. There have always been some patriots and as time went on, less and less. We have all but lost our Republic because of it. But that damn sure does not mean that this country has been a total failure since 1787. If it's been such a pile of shit for so long, why do you think so many people have died trying to come here? Were they just stupid as all hell? Or what?

My God, if this is the kind of ignorance we have in this movement, we have no hope at all!!!

The reality is that the bad guys, remember them?, have written in books for quite a long time, that they needed to take down the U.S., in order to achieve their goals. And they have just about done it. And we sit here talking crap about what a POS our country has been since 1787. If it was the POS you say it was, there would never have been a goal to take it down. Once upon a time, and in fact, within MY lifetime, it was seen as a beacon of liberty. And that could not be allowed to exist. Far from perfect, yes, but still better than most any other place. And yes, we have just about completely lost that. WE have lost that. It's not the Constitution's fault, it is OUR fault.

[osan]

Again, you blame the victim. (a key rhetorical tool of the government religion) What makes you think "we" had anything to do with it?

With what, in specific?


Libertarian-ish movements have been going on for decades, yet the State still grows.

Which indicates what?


The Constitution is clearly not an impediment to tyranny, but a tool for it


Anything may be em ployed as such a tool. Consider the press alone.


You would be best advised to place the blame on the perpetrators, not the victims.

Therein lies one root of your problem - you see "us" as victims. We are no such thing. We have, through stupidity and the single-minded pursuit of immediate convenience over less pleasant truth explicitly or tacitly consented to all of that which has been perpetrated against us.


After all, the DoI divorced American society from the absurdity of man-made tyranny-why reverse progress back towards tyranny?

I am afraid you've lost me here. I don't quite comprehend the meaning of this last sentence. Could you clarify, please?

[nate895]

Are you kidding me? !!!

How's your big screen tv, dude? How about that new cell phone? And that new game system? How many cars does your family have? In your young life, have you worried much about where your next meal was coming from? Been worrying much about flapping your gums about most any damn thing you wanted to say?

I know that's not all there is, but to say that the U.S. has been a failure is absolutely ludicrous!! What happened is the American people quit minding the store, so to speak. There have always been some patriots and as time went on, less and less. We have all but lost our Republic because of it. But that damn sure does not mean that this country has been a total failure since 1787. If it's been such a pile of shit for so long, why do you think so many people have died trying to come here? Were they just stupid as all hell? Or what?

My God, if this is the kind of ignorance we have in this movement, we have no hope at all!!!

He was suggesting I believed that by reading stuff into my quotes. Galileo likes to do that a lot, it seems.

[LibertyEagle]

I hope so. It reminded me of the same claptrap I was just reading in the Glenn Beck/Donald Duck thread.

[Galileo Galilei]

How you got that from my statement, I have no idea.

Because you used the words total failure, that's how.

[LibertyEagle]

I apologize to you, Galileo, if what you wrote was facetious.

[Galileo Galilei]

People rose up and defeated the British, yes. How that implies a collective "will of the people" I don't know. There were loyalists, lots of them actually, you know. Are you suggesting loyalists aren't people?

The will of the people is an average of each person's will.

[Galileo Galilei]

Are you kidding me? !!!

How's your big screen tv, dude? How about that new cell phone? And that new game system? How many cars does your family have? In your young life, have you worried much about where your next meal was coming from? Been worrying much about flapping your gums about most any damn thing you wanted to say?

I know that's not all there is, but to say that the U.S. has been a failure is absolutely ludicrous!! What happened is the American people quit minding the store, so to speak. There have always been some patriots and as time went on, less and less. We have all but lost our Republic because of it. But that damn sure does not mean that this country has been a total failure since 1787. If it's been such a pile of shit for so long, why do you think so many people have died trying to come here? Were they just stupid as all hell? Or what?

My God, if this is the kind of ignorance we have in this movement, we have no hope at all!!!

The reality is that the bad guys, remember them?, have written in books for quite a long time, that they needed to take down the U.S., in order to achieve their goals. And they have just about done it. And we sit here talking crap about what a POS our country has been since 1787. If it was the POS you say it was, there would never have been a goal to take it down. Once upon a time, and in fact, within MY lifetime, it was seen as a beacon of liberty. And that could not be allowed to exist. Far from perfect, yes, but still better than most any other place. And yes, we have just about completely lost that. WE have lost that. It's not the Constitution's fault, it is OUR fault.

I'm saying it wasn't a total failure.

[Galileo Galilei]

I apologize to you, Galileo, if what you wrote was facetious.

It was a question.

[nate895]

Because you used the words total failure, that's how.

People use absolute terms in non-absolute ways all of the time (see I just did it there). I was saying it in the context of saying that the Constitution has been incapable of protecting our liberties. What we need to do to repair that situation, I do not know, but it is clear that something must be changed.

[nate895]

The will of the people is an average of each person's will.

That doesn't even make any sense. How do you average wills?

[heavenlyboy34]

With what, in specific?



Which indicates what?




Anything may be em ployed as such a tool. Consider the press alone.
-yes, but the press can easily be ignored. The government cannot be.



Therein lies one root of your problem - you see "us" as victims. We are no such thing. We have, through stupidity and the single-minded pursuit of immediate convenience over less pleasant truth explicitly or tacitly consented to all of that which has been perpetrated against us.

You wrongly assume I have a problem. When a government is foisted upon people, they are victims, as we are. (Did the majority of Americans want a Constitution? No. Did you, personally, agree to the Constitution? If not, your logic here collapses on itself)



I am afraid you've lost me here. I don't quite comprehend the meaning of this last sentence. Could you clarify, please?

When I say "After all, the DoI divorced American society from the absurdity of man-made tyranny-why reverse progress back towards tyranny?"

I mean that this document rejected the tyranny of arbitrary manmade law of tyrants in favor practical law that works for all individuals. Moving from this to the absurdly Institutionalist Constitution is a giant step backward in progress from tyranny to liberty.

Of course, you are free to relish in this tyranny. I only ask that you exempt me from it. Since history seems to show that the Constitutional regime is incapable of this simple show of respect for individual soverignty, it is unworthy of free individuals and society.

[osan]

What's this "we" you speak of? Got a mouse in your pocket?

By all means, speak for yourself. Not for me.

Let us please dispense with the pedantics. My use of "we" is a well familar term of expressive art to denote the larger body of people in question. "We" represents a majority of Americans - of human beings I would daresay.


I've been fighting against the expansion of government basically my entire life.As have many of us - commendable. For every one of you there are perhaps 1-- who either don't care or who choose to believe the lies they are fed because it allows them to pursue the important things in their lives - it becomes a matter of convenience and I find that despicable.


For most of that time I was a CONstitutionalist and did favor political action and solutions.

I've seen SEVERAL so-called "liberty movements," every one of them as impressive as the current one.

The most impressive one, even more so than the current, was the Reagan "revolution." Ronnie won in a landslide, if you recall. He won on promises to shrink government significantly, and even abolish some federal agencies.

As ALWAYS happens, and always will, when presumed "liberty candidates" get elected, none of it ever came to pass.The question this raises is "why?"


The government continued to grow larger, more intrusive, and spending continued to increase. The FED remains.
This would indicate one of two things - either we have to do something different (probably VERY different) - or we are screwed and should cut our losses and strive to advance our personal interests in the new order, forgetting about all this childishness centering on the hopeless notions of personal liberty.

Which is it?

[klamath]

If you really believe this, I pity you. Even Jefferson thought that the States could nullify Federal action. This is not to justify slavery, obviously, but to rebut your cliched, charicature-like, incorrect version of southern secession.
Grow UP.

[GunnyFreedom]

It was in a friendly debate recently, when I had considered the possibility that perhaps we should relinquish our rights, in favor of a more aggressive and active government. Perhaps we should be encouraging our Congress to dictate more policies, to facilitate more comforts, and to regulate more in general. Consider Benjamin Franklin's comment that: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Few would argue that our government and businesses are less corrupt or that our cities are less vicious than in Franklin's day. So, says the diplomat, we are in more need of masters.

Franklin says we will be in need of more masters, Adams says the Constitution is inadequate, so do we need a new form of government? Some claim that we need to oust everyone in Washington DC and start over with a group that will follow the correct role of government. The problem with such logic is that the same people will be back at home voting the same group back to Washington. Nothing would change.

If actually obeying the Constitution for once could be given as cause for the economic recovery that is due in 5-7 years (so long as we can logjam the legislatures and let the markets work), then I think we can make that predominant caucus last at least long enough to install a few safeguards from having "broken the Constitution in" as a nation so to speak.

I would like to see enforcement clauses levying treason against an official found in violation of his or her oath, with charges able to be brought by a majority referendum of his or her constituents. If nothing else, a lot fewer people would run for office, and then only reluctantly. :D Unless they had every intention of obeying the Constitution, then it wouldn't be so scary...

Instead of our current form of SCOTUS oversight, the SCOTUS should sit in judgment over Congressmen (and State high courts over Legislators) whose constituents have brought charges of misdemeanor, felonious, or treasonous violation of the oath of office. The SC then determines if lawmaker defied the Constitution and to what degree. Penalties would span from fines to jail, prohibition from politics for a term or for life. prison, incarceration, even capital punishment, as established for traditional treason.

If they stay within the framework of the Constitution then they have nothing to worry about from any party. Any proper judgment would be not guilty. But, if you are off the path when more than half of your district decides to charge you, then you can expect to pay your due, and then a second referendum on whether or not to remove you from office.

SCOTUS becomes even more relevant, and less dangerous at the same time. Government has an incentive to not overstep and grow beyond the Constitution.

So do two things, first make violation of the oath of office a real crime, graded from misdemeanor to treason. Second, set up the Supreme Court primarily to hear cases against elected officials brought by their district constituents at large. The language of a single Amendment to do both of those should not need to be so large.

It's not whether reformers get into office or not, but if we can stick around long enough to gain a majority caucus and install safeguards against further abuse down the road. The Senator who knew that saying "I don't care about the Constitution" while voting for HMO Mandates would lead to a lethal injection on C-SPAN would be a little bit more likely to follow the rules and listen to his people when they cry out "NO!"

[heavenlyboy34]

Grow UP.

Wonderful counterpoint. (not) :rolleyes:

[osan]

I think we all support principles over pieces of paper.

Well put. Yes yes yes.

[klamath]

Wonderful counterpoint. (not) :rolleyes:

I pity you.:rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

I pity you.:rolleyes:

Why? Because I don't base my arguments on obvious fallacies as you do? Or is it because I don't make weak counter arguments (the silly rolleyes smiley was the extent of your "response") as you do?

[klamath]

Why? Because I don't base my arguments on obvious fallacies as you do? Or is it because I don't make weak counter arguments (the silly rolleyes smiley was the extent of your "response") as you do?
You don't discuss, you snipe.

[heavenlyboy34]

You don't discuss, you snipe.

Not so, most of the time. In fact, I've posted a few of my articles on this very site. You're being awfully selective (and intellectually dishonest). I've been involved in many-a lengthy discussion if you check my history. You ought to rethink your opinion, as the evidence is against you. (I'm one of the least "snipish" people on these boards, in my experience)

[klamath]

Not so, most of the time. In fact, I've posted a few of my articles on this very site. You're being awfully selective (and intellectually dishonest). I've been involved in many-a lengthy discussion if you check my history. You ought to rethink your opinion, as the evidence is against you. (I'm one of the least "snipish" people on these boards, in my experience)

What ever.

[heavenlyboy34]

What ever.

Peace be upon thee. :cool:

[nate895]

That doesn't even make any sense. How do you average wills?

I'm still trying to think how you average wills. I mean really, is it even possible to speak in such language or is it on the level of "square circle?"

[CCTelander]

Let us please dispense with the pedantics. My use of "we" is a well familar term of expressive art to denote the larger body of people in question. "We" represents a majority of Americans - of human beings I would daresay.


Okay, maybe you didn't deserve that. Please accept my apologies.



As have many of us - commendable. For every one of you there are perhaps 1-- who either don't care or who choose to believe the lies they are fed because it allows them to pursue the important things in their lives - it becomes a matter of convenience and I find that despicable.


This comment, to me, highlights one of the more serious challenges that the whole "liberty movement" faces. Most liberty advocates are unaware that this is even a problem, or simply don't care. But they damn well should, IMO.

Let me ask you, how can you expect to effectively communicate with people, let alone actually persuade them of anything, if you're holding them in utter contempt? What, you think they're not going to pick up on that? (I'm using the term "you" in a similar manner to your use of the term we, just to avoid any potential confusion.)

In my experience, most who self-identify as "liberty advocates" display a level of arrogant paternalism that rivals any exhibited by those in power. They view themselves as "the ones" who are "clued in," and are going to lead the sheeple, the ignorant masses, the brain dead zombies to freedom, whether they want it or not.

They view the general population as just too stupid, or brainwashed, to figure anything out for themselves. The general public NEEDS wise, intelligent people like themselves (the "liberty advocates") to lead them out of their fog.

These "liberty advocates" think they're going to trick or deceive the masses into becoming more free by "positioning" their own candidates to win elections with watered down or disingenuous rhetoric. Once their guys are elected, they'll fix everything, basically forcing the masses to be free.

How is this attitude any different than the attitude displayed by those in power?

And note the cognitive dissonance that's going on here.

These kinds of "liberty advocates" see themselves as the "clued in" saviors of the people, yet they themselves are looking to external saviors (their chosen political candidates) to actually "fix" things.

Not only do they refuse to recognize the outrageous cognitive dissonance they're displaying, but it gets even worse.

They tend to look down on, even figuratively spit upon, the masses for failing to be swayed by facts, reason and logic, but they themselves absolutely refuse to be so swayed. They obdurately cling to their own pre-existing dogma, and outright refuse to even consider any facts, reason or logic that doesn't comport with it.

Don't believe me?

Just try presenting a factual or well-reasoned argument against voting, or in favor of open borders, or free trade, or argue that "rights" inhere in ALL human beings, not just those who happened to be born under the purported jurisdiction of the CONstitution. See how far you get. Your facts and reason usually won't even be acknowledged, let alone actually objectively considered.

And those are just a few examples.

Unfortunately, at least in my own experience, these types comprise a significant portion of the “liberty movement,” maybe even the majority.

Do they ever really try to make some kind of real, human connection with the people they're trying to reach? Maybe establish some rapport? Even treat them like real people instead of as nameless “voters?”

Nope, they just keep throwing money at their “liberty candidates” hoping that maybe the next debate will wake a few up. Or that they'll be able to fund enough TV commercials to trick the “sheeple” into voting for their guys, and then they can force those “sheeple” to be free once they win.

Do they ever lift one little finger to substantively help any of those “sheeple” to be more self-reliant? Maybe teach them to grow a garden so they don't starve, or start a small business to show them that they actually CAN take care of themselves?

Again, no. They may preach it to them, often arrogantly, but they never get out there and actually HELP them in any significant way.

Do they even bother to educate themselves as to how people actually make decisions, and the best ways to reach and influence people?

Nope yet again. They just keep hitting them in the face with facts, reason and logic (their own versions of same), when anyone with two functioning brain cells knows that facts, reason and logic almost never change anyone's mind about anything.

So tell me, why SHOULD those “sheeple,” those “ignorant masses,” those “brain dead zombies” listen to “us”? What the hell have “we” ever done for THEM? Most of “us” can't even be bothered to show them a little simple dignity and respect.

These people have been propagandized and conditioned their entire lives, by everyone they've ever trusted and looked up to, to think and act the way they do. They can't be held responsible for what they don't know or understand. And you can't expect them to just take your word for anything.

What are you doing to earn their trust?

The general public doesn't deserve the contempt that many so-called “liberty advocates” heap on them. I used to make the same mistake. But nowadays I tend to reserve my contempt for those “liberty advocates” described above who claim to, and should, know better, but apparently don't.

They can't even be bothered to actually look at what results they're getting. If they did, they'd know that those results are MUCH less than stellar, and almost ANY change in strategy and tactics would likely produce better.


The question this raises is "why?"


The answer is simple. It's because any time you give people any significant power over the lives of others, that power WILL be abused.

http://www.prisonexp.org/

No human is perfect. Power tends to corrupt, either through temptation toward using it to advance one's self-interest, or through the desire to use it to do good. Of the two, the latter is by far the most dangerous.



This would indicate one of two things - either we have to do something different (probably VERY different)

Bingo!

IMO, the entire “liberty movement” needs to be overhauled from top to bottom. Strategies and tactics have been exactly the same for at least the last 50 years (probably for the last 200 plus years). If they were going to work, they'd have done so already.

Everything from how education is handled, to what to actually try to educate people about, to what forms of activism to engage in should be critically examined. The idea that “we” can just keep doing what we've been doing, better and harder, and we'll achieve different results is, quite simply, delusional.



- or we are screwed and should cut our losses and strive to advance our personal interests in the new order, forgetting about all this childishness centering on the hopeless notions of personal liberty.

Which is it?


In the short term, who knows? We may be pretty well fucked unless “liberty advocates” man up, accept FULL responsibility for their lives and circumstances, and start acting like free people. In other words, dump their victim mentality and act on their beliefs.

In the longer term, I absolutely believe that a stateless society is the next major leap in human societal evolution. It's just a matter of time.

Our descendents will look back on what's going on now with the same well-deserved contempt that modern people look back on chattel slavery.