The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

[Christian Liberty]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion. I agree that what Washington did was wrong. But, I don't see how its any different than anything any State has ever done in history. Washington even pardoned the rebels, as I recall, which is far more than any modern politician would do.

Don't get me wrong, its a big issue. I'm not saying Washington was a saint. But, voluntarism hadn't been systematized at that point. I'm not certain it ever existed since the time of the Judges. Washington was offered ABSOLUTE power and rejected it, only reluctantly agreeing to be President, and then stepped down after two terms... I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but I do believe he was a decent man.

[fr33]

I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion. I agree that what Washington did was wrong. But, I don't see how its any different than anything any State has ever done in history. Washington even pardoned the rebels, as I recall, which is far more than any modern politician would do.

Don't get me wrong, its a big issue. I'm not saying Washington was a saint. But, voluntarism hadn't been systematized at that point. I'm not certain it ever existed since the time of the Judges. Washington was offered ABSOLUTE power and rejected it, only reluctantly agreeing to be President, and then stepped down after two terms... I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but I do believe he was a decent man.

General Washington's army was inspired by the Boston Tea Party. Then he ordered the murders of people who resisted his own policies that mimicked the Tea Act. He was a tool of the Federalists and thanks to people like him, the United States made England out to be pikers in the realm of Imperialism.

[idiom]

"An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

ya know, that sure sounds like a reference to natural law IDIOM.

are you familiar with the error code, IT10T?

The axioms of 'natural law' are generally not accepted without controversy. Ergo the 'axioms' are not axioms and arguments built on top of them are not properly founded.

[idiom]

DOUBLE POST

[idiom]

T_T_TRIPLE POST

[kcchiefs6465]

The axioms of 'natural law' are generally not accepted without controversy. Ergo the 'axioms' are not axioms and arguments built on top of them are not properly founded.

Please describe "controversy."

Arguments founded on the basis of natural law are built on sounder foundation than robbing all based on majority consent. Regardless of what the axiom is.

As if an argument cannot be properly reasoned without some majority's confirmation.

[osan]

Funny how paulites who think the constitution is somehow the work of god are now wishing to see it burned.

Funny how everything you post appears void of any probative value.

[osan]

I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion. I agree that what Washington did was wrong.

And yet, it did not precipitate the first civil war as should have been the case. Had the people of the new land been of the correct attitude, everyone from Washington on down would have been publicly hung by the necks until they were dead after having been hauled up, rather than dropped down. We have been ruled by tyrants since the very first days. That is not to say America was not different. It was, but only in degree and not in anything fundamental. This is a crucial point that so few see, mostly because they refuse to, rather than due to any organic inability.

I have strong regard for Jefferson, but even he fell to temptation as president. It's what people do when placed in positions that offer such temptation. There are few exceptions to this. Ron Paul appears to be one of them.

But, I don't see how its any different than anything any State has ever done in history.

Perhaps so, but it was supposed to be different. This was supposed to be something better than SOS Empire, yet in the end it was only by the splits of hairs precisely because the tyrant had his hand up our collective ass the whole time and we never shook him off as all moral duty would have dictated. The imposition of the grossly flawed Constitution upon the greater body of the population should have seen every signer and every ratifier hung, shot, or left to languish in a dungeon for an eon. But we failed in our responsibilities to ourselves and our fellows. This may be excusable because thought forms reality and in those days certain avenues of thought were obviously very different from what they are today. But the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight still reveals the shame of opportunity wasted. It has been downhill from there. Why were the justices of the SCOTUS not hung from their necks unto death for their unanimous act of treason in the 1803 Marbury decision, one of the grandest usurpations of our history?

Washington even pardoned the rebels, as I recall, which is far more than any modern politician would do.

Pardoned the rebels for rebelling against Washington's unforgivable transgression against their sovereign rights? How white of him.

Don't get me wrong, its a big issue. I'm not saying Washington was a saint. But, voluntarism hadn't been systematized at that point. I'm not certain it ever existed since the time of the Judges. Washington was offered ABSOLUTE power and rejected it, only reluctantly agreeing to be President, and then stepped down after two terms... I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but I do believe he was a decent man.

How is the "systematization" (whatever the hell that might even mean in this case) of the undefined term "voluntarism" relevant? The notions of liberty were well established and understood by the Framers. Washington has no excuse. He was a tyrant, plain and simple and all his presumed good intentions notwithstanding. The best of intentions absolves one not a whit of the crime of violating the rights of others. He should have been publicly executed before a standing-room only crowd such that the people of this land would have had set for them early on the stark and terrifying precedent of the fate that awaits all tyrants and other criminals. Always offer the opportunity to amend that which may be amended. For those who refuse and for those things that cannot be set right, the penalties should be severe, most especially for anyone employed by so-called "government", from president to local dog catcher. Violate the sovereignty of your fellows and suffer a fate that would have you wishing you'd been flayed alive and boiled in oil.

I truly suspect that the number of people on this rock who truly understand the deeper meanings of proper human relations can be counted on one hand. The stray-leading presumptions nearly everyone holds are simply mind-boggling.

[heavenlyboy34]

+rep for osan

[idiom]

Saw this, thought of you guys

[idiom]

Please describe "controversy."

Arguments founded on the basis of natural law are built on sounder foundation than robbing all based on majority consent. Regardless of what the axiom is.

As if an argument cannot be properly reasoned without some majority's confirmation.

Evaluating the soundness of a logical argument based on its utility?

I can't even.

[kcchiefs6465]

Evaluating the soundness of a logical argument based on its utility?

I can't even.

Robbing all, I mean taxing them, to pay for certain people's things is so widely accepted as legitimate one could attempt to describe the premise as an axiom. I don't particularly care to do so.

Theft is theft is theft.

I don't care how people come to that conclusion, only that they do.

If you wish to debate the merits of natural law versus other legal axioms (theories, rather) I am sure there are people up to the task. One member here even developed his own and has spoken a bit about the shortcomings of natural law. It's just not how I particularly care to spend my day, most importantly, secondly, it doesn't really matter how people come to the conclusion that theft is immoral, and thirdly I wouldn't be the best candidate to participate in such a debate.

[osan]

The axioms of 'natural law' are generally not accepted without controversy.

Neither are any others, so what is your point? Besides, controversy in itself fails to invalidate... and yet, people use the term in the way you apparently do here, precisely with that goal in mind.

Ergo the 'axioms' are not axioms and arguments built on top of them are not properly founded.

Sweet Jesus, what a screaming, flailing non sequitur! You may as well have put it this way:

Proxima Centauri is 4 light years away. Ergo, my dick is ten feet long.

Seriously, you have here given a truly spectacular example of failed logic. Not only is your argument non-cogent, I would be money I don't have that it is also demonstrably false. Then again, you have not provided your examples of these "non-axioms", so perhaps you might start with that and demonstrate how they fail. Otherwise, we have nothing to exchange here but empty words.

[Origanalist]

Saw this, thought of you guys

Am I the only one that finds this to be a sign of a disturbed mind?

[HVACTech]

Saw this, thought of you guys

saw this, thought of you.

[Origanalist]

saw this, thought of you.

OK, it's getting weird.....

[Christian Liberty]

+rep for osan

You think Washington should have been hanged?

[fr33]

You think Washington should have been hanged?

Look to what you're saying and defending. You've called modern day soldiers murderers and have had little sympathy to any consequences they face. You've expressed the opinion that abortionists should be killed and many more govt agents than that.

George Washington ordered the deaths of people that refused to pay taxes. Spare me your silly outrage. Do you still believe he chopped down a cherry tree and all that other propaganda? It's ok to destroy property and start a war over tea taxes but not over whiskey taxes? Methinks your protestantism is showing.

[Christian Liberty]

Look to what you're saying and defending.

I was simply asking.

You've called modern day soldiers murderers and have had little sympathy to any consequences they face.

I've stated that those who kill them while defending their countries are justified, but I certainly don't wish harm to come to them either. That said, that's more because their ignorant in general than because of some high moral belief that we shouldn't wish harm on people (sometimes I do whether I like it or not.)

You've expressed the opinion that abortionists should be killed and many more govt agents than that.

Well, George Tiller in particular killed FAR more people than Washington ever did. Sure, you could argue that its just a matter of degree, but still.

George Washington ordered the deaths of people that refused to pay taxes. Spare me your silly outrage.

I'm not outraged. I just don't see Washington as exceptional in this regard. If you want to say that everyone who has been POTUS deserves to be hanged, fine. But comparatively speaking Washington was one of the better ones.

Do you still believe he chopped down a cherry tree and all that other propaganda?

No, of course not. But even if he did, who cares? What would that have to do with any of this?

It's ok to destroy property and start a war over tea taxes but not over whiskey taxes? Methinks your protestantism is showing.

lol... no, I think the Pennsylvania farmers were completely justified in resisting. But, if anything I'd argue that Washington should have been hanged for slave-holding before that.

[fr33]

lol... no, I think the Pennsylvania farmers were completely justified in resisting. But, if anything I'd argue that Washington should have been hanged for slave-holding before that.

Then stop acting like you want to defend Washington for multiple pages on this topic. It's disingenuous. That's exactly why I brought up the cherry tree story.

[HVACTech]

OK, it's getting weird.....

whut?

I thought I used both an idiom and an axiom....

are you making fun of me?

[Origanalist]

whut?

I thought I used both an idiom and an axiom....

are you making fun of me?

Well of course I would never do that, I guess it's just my strange way of expressing myself.

[osan]

That's pretty damning of the "Founding Fathers", and the cult that has grown around them over the centuries, isn't it? (That is, the historical people the Constitutionalists would have us look to as role models couldn't even operate properly in their own time and under the best possible circumstances)

Well, yes. Noble and haughty words don't count for much when the actions are the same old rotten thing.

But they were men, after all, and not gods as some would imply. Jefferson was a great man, but still a man and it became apparent during his presidency. He was not a particularly good president, by absolute standards, though stellar when compared with the likes of Lewinksy's bitch, the shrubs, and Bammy. However, for me "almost" doesn't cut the mustard. Freedom is an all-or-nothing deal. One is either free, or is something else. We are all something else and we have never been anything other than that.

The tyranny is built into the American system, but most people fail to see it because the basic assumptions under which their minds labor blind them to the deeper truth. Generally speaking, people want the impossible: freedom and a guarantee of security. The two are mutually exclusive, and yet people refuse to accept this. They fail to recognize the difference between an absolute guarantee of security and its optimal assurance. Only true freedom allows for latter, whereas the former is only achievable as an illusion and only under conditions of tyrannical governance masquerading as rightful authority. It is a grand lie and people lap it up because believing the lie saves them from facing the scary truth about the very real dangers of life; dangers that cannot be escaped; dangers that, when turned away from in cowardice do not cause them to vanish but only render one's position in the world all the more precarious.

The average human being today is a rank coward and I am reminded of the testimony scene in "A Few Good Men" where the good Col. Jessup speaks of men with guns who walk the wall so that those within may sleep peacefully at night. He identified and nut-shelled precisely that which is centrally wrong with Americans today: they want all the benefits with none of the costs, but will settle for the the mere and cheap illusion of those benefits and are willing to pay the impossibly high price those lies carry. Anything, so long as little Joey and Janey Meaner are not required to face the scary monsters that lurk just beyond the cast of their campfire lights. And let us not ignore the terrible inconvenience that responsibility for oneself imposes upon the once "upwardly mobile" American. They have a right! Banish any thought of assuming the care and feeding of your own life because "we" are not qualified. Theye, however, are. By what means and authority are never clearly revealed. We live in a quagmire of tacit assumptions, the questioning of which is not tolerated; and so we do not ask.

Well, I am asking and on 10/2 I will stand before a magistrate for a seatbelt citation and I assure you that before I am done, I will politely corner the judge with questions. Every bull$#@! answer he gives will be met with more questions. He will either toss me out or toss me into a cell. I will no longer stand for that which goes on here. It will make no whit of difference, save to end me up in a cell, but I no longer care about that. I will let everyone know how it works out.

[osan]

You seem to be appealing to the "social contract" theory. Lysander Spooner thoroughly destroyed that in "No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority". (Others have done good work on the subject since then, but Spooner's piece is the best I've read)

Not sure what you mean here. Not even sure how you define "social contract", a term that appears to have no rigorous and universal definition. Therefore, I cannot answer with any intelligence without setting the foundation of understanding. That would take too much time and I have things to do today, but I will speak loosely and hopefully clearly enough that we understand each other.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to the notion of a "social contract". As I understand the term, it is an oxymoron representing an impossibility, when taken in the context of the six elements of contracts. For example, one cannot be "born into" the so-called social contract. There is no offer; there is no explicit acceptance; a newborn lacks capacity; given the preceding, the contract cannot be "lawful"; there can be no intention to enter into legal relations (speaks largely to capacity). The only remotely plausible element that might be present is "consideration", and that can be only speculative where infants are concerned.

Give all that, the social contract is an utter impossibility. It is a unicorn with a cotton-candy mane.

Therefore, we banish the nonsense of "social contract" to the dustbin where it belongs. But what, then, might be the basis of proper human relations? Simply this: equal claims to life. Of those claims are in fact equal and if they are not arbitrary, then the only proper conclusion to which one may arrive is that the equal rights of each man draws about him a boundary within which no other may pass without his explicit and qualified permission. I will not go into the deeper logic here, but it is simple and easily identified by anyone seeking to find it. It ain't rocket surgery.

What does that mean? It means that rather than being a party top an impossibility, we rather carry a duty to one another to respect those boundaries with propriety and all good faith. What is the basis of that duty? Whence does it issue? The answer there is equally clear: it issues from the basic rights of the Individual that follow from his basic claim to life. It is a pragmatic basis as much as philosophical. The right to life directly implies the right to defend it. The right to defend life implies the right to the means of defense. Given that right and its exercise, the violation of the rightful boundaries of one man by another places the violator at all jeopardy because those whom he violates carry with them the prerogative to take whatever action they deem necessary to repel an invader of his territory. Therefore, on the practical level, the violator risks his own life and limb when he chooses to trespass upon his fellows.

There is substantially more to it that what I write here, but this should be sufficient for now.

[Deborah K]

That's like saying "well, everything would be great if it weren't for those things that went wrong." It's an obvious statement, but not an argument.

Perhaps you can help me to understand, but I can't comprehend why the Constitution gets a free pass. The reality is that the Constitution never worked. You admit so in your statement. Therefore, why does it get the benefit of the doubt?

Nothing works, that's put in writing, unless you put it into practice, and adhere to it. A business plan, a to-do list, a contract, a Constitution....what's so hard to understand about that?

[Deborah K]

The belief in the Constitution instead of people is the problem.

Nothing wrong with the Constitution, but its powerless to bind a corrupt society. Burning it wouldn't fix the society, but it might open eyes.

Why can't you do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

[DaninPA]

+rep for osan

And some from me ��

[familydog]

Nothing works, that's put in writing, unless you put it into practice, and adhere to it. A business plan, a to-do list, a contract, a Constitution....what's so hard to understand about that?

A business plan, a to-do list and a contract are all voluntary. The Constitution is not voluntary. It is unreasonable to expect people to follow a document that they never agreed to in the first place.

With that said, when do you believe people stopped following the Constitution? George Washington started the ball rolling with his actions during the Whiskey Rebellions. It took only about four years before people stopped following the Constitution, as written. That's not a great track record.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nothing works, that's put in writing, unless you put it into practice, and adhere to it. A business plan, a to-do list, a contract, a Constitution....what's so hard to understand about that?

There's nothing hard to understand about it. It just doesn't work in practice. Kinda like how we dismiss the commies because of the vast disparity between the rather egalitarian theory and its fail in practice.

[Deborah K]

There's nothing hard to understand about it. It just doesn't work in practice. Kinda like how we dismiss the commies because of the vast disparity between the rather egalitarian theory and its fail in practice.

Do you mean to imply that it never works in practice? Nothing is foolproof, not even voluntarism.