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

[Deborah K]

There's nothing wrong with sharing dissenting thoughts about the Constitution.

It is just a piece of paper in the end and it's clear that, whether it is a pillar of liberty or not, that we the people have failed to keep the Government in check, Constitution or no Constitution.

I find pieces like this interesting because it challenges what I believe and makes me honestly take my positions and what I support and reexamine them.

It makes me want to study the Constitution again, which I probably should to refresh my memory. I should probably also study the Bible again because it's been a while since I've glanced at that as well.

If people are turned away because we want to discuss the Constitution in a way that isn't always idolatry and praise, then they aren't being intellectually honest with themselves.

Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are? I think so. And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it. Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities. The Quakers are sort of an example. They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.

[heavenlyboy34]

Correct, but let us look to root causes. The ultimate shame lies at OUR feet and not those of the political figures whose scurrilous acts we have tolerated since the very beginning of the Republic. Had we set the precedent ca. 1790 wherein the least violation by an official or other instrument of the so-called "state" been met with a bullet to the head or a length of good stiff rope, I daresay we would not be in the pickle in which we now find ourselves. We might be in other pickles, mind you, but not this one.

The sorts of people who seek political office are generally of a lower character than even the average man. There are exceptions like Ron Paul, but these are few and far between. Like snakes, such people are what they are. Part of that which defines "viper" is "bite". One cannot blame the viper for biting, but one can either avoid it or kill it in the event it attacks. The same with politicians. We can avoid dirtying our hands with them and, in the event such persons threaten us, we can kill them. Just as I am authorized by my inherent right to life to take the life from anyone threatening to do me grave harm, so are we all entitled by the same right to destroy the material reality of any governmental agent, elected, appointed, or hired, when they threaten the sanctity of our rights. We almost universally demur and have done so since the beginning.

Therefore, the shame and guilt lies squarely with us and nobody else.

Think of that the next time you find yourself looking in the mirror.

The "our" here makes no sense (unless you have a mouse in your pocket?). Otherwise a rather good point. 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)

[heavenlyboy34]

Agreed. Nothing wrong with a constitution. The problem is that people tend to be lazy, especially along certain lines and often under specific conditions. They will pawn their responsibilities off on others any time the can get away with it. And here we are.

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)

[Deborah K]

The "our" here makes no sense (unless you have a mouse in your pocket?). Otherwise a rather good point. 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)

I would argue that the founding era was not "the best possible circumstances". But I would agree that even the Founders couldn't live up to the high standards which were set in the Constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well in all fairness, it WAS written in secret, and behind closed doors. Article VII provides for a very sneaky ratification process. It was an illegal unauthorized extension of their official assignment. It was read by MAYBE 10,000 folks before being ratified, out of a total population of several millions. It CONstituted (pun intended) a coup by the Federalists against the lawful Articles of Confederation.

And even then, with all that it still just barely squeaked by in a rigged process.

Got a real winner there, folks. A real testament to historic revisionism, PR, propaganda and a government schooling system.

"Official" history is most often and usually written by the winners.

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” -- Ron Paul

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ronin Truth again.

Sorry I can't +rep you anymore for now. You're doing great things in this thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would argue that the founding era was not "the best possible circumstances". But I would agree that even the Founders couldn't live up to the high standards which were set in the Constitution.

One of the most literate societies in the world at the time full of people who understood both the words and historical context of civics, no significant history of corruption/usurpation, and a basically evenly armed people compared to the government isn't the best possible circumstance? It couldn't have been better if there had been no prior experience as a guide at all! C'mon, I may have been born in December, but it wasn't last December! :P

[Spikender]

Gentlemen,

Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.

It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.

Bill Buppert

Thanks for writing that essay, I just reread it after waking up from a refreshing nap and I'd say it makes a good introduction into taking a more critical review of the documents of the Constitution.

As I said before, I really have to restudy the Constitution, which I should have a chance to do tonight. Going into the document with a more critical eye could be valuable for me... last time I came from a less discerning viewpoint.

Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are? I think so. And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it. Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities. The Quakers are sort of an example. They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.

Well first off I want to say that not everyone who is critical of the Constitution is an anarchist. I don't think you were implying that, because I don't usually consider myself an anarchist though I will say that sometimes anarchy does seem preferable to what we have now. In any case, that's one reason why along with taking another review of the Constitution, I'd like to review the Articles of Confederation as well. It sucks to admit, but I haven't really looked at them and it's something I should've done a long time ago. In school they hammered us over and over again telling us that the Articles made the Federal Government too "weak" and that they failed... and they never went into much more detail than that.

On your point about adhering to the Constitution... well I think that it goes without saying that our Government would be far smaller if we had stuck by it. It's crazy to think that, even if you are coming from a viewpoint where the Constitution is an enabler of bigger Government, that our current Government doesn't even follow it in over ninety percent of its decisions.

[Deborah K]

One of the most literate societies in the world at the time full of people who understood both the words and historical context of civics, no significant history of corruption/usurpation, and a basically evenly armed people compared to the government isn't the best possible circumstance? It couldn't have been better if there had been no prior experience as a guide at all! C'mon, I may have been born in December, but it wasn't last December! :P

They had a debt from the war with Britain to contend with, and France tried to suck them into their war. And there were plenty of sympathizers for France at the time since it was common knowledge that without their help, we probably would have lost. Those 'wonder years' of our infancy were indeed magical, but also filled with strife.

[HVACTech]

excellent conversation folks,
what I have NOT seen yet is a clear elucidation about what our constitution is BASED on.
I submit that it is based on Natural or Organic Law. this is a very important distinction in my purview.
my understanding is that this concept matured in the age of enlightenment.

without a firm understanding of the basis, a student cannot learn very well.
the rule of law, is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy, this rule of law, can be based on anything. (hence PRC, USSR...) our rule of law is our constitution.
it is based on Natural Law.

if my view is correct. would this not explain why we are not making better progress?
(besides Fluoride of course)....

[heavenlyboy34]

They had a debt from the war with Britain to contend with, and France tried to suck them into their war. And there were plenty of sympathizers for France at the time since it was common knowledge that without their help, we probably would have lost. Those 'wonder years' of our infancy were indeed magical, but also filled with strife.

Strife is not an excuse for lawlessness and tyranny. That's an old-fashioned imperialist game to keep the subjects busy and obedient. If I were so inclined, I could make up ex post facto justifications for just about all government crimes based partly or entirely on "strife".

[heavenlyboy34]

excellent conversation folks,
what I have NOT seen yet is a clear elucidation about what our constitution is BASED on.
I submit that it is based on Natural or Organic Law. this is a very important distinction in my purview.
my understanding is that this concept matured in the age of enlightenment.

without a firm understanding of the basis, a student cannot learn very well.
the rule of law, is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy, this rule of law, can be based on anything. (hence PRC, USSR...) our rule of law is our constitution.
it is based on Natural Law.

if my view is correct. would this not explain why we are not making better progress?
(besides Fluoride of course)....

Nonsense. Aside from the Bill Of Rights, it has almost nothing to do with Natural Law. Despite its problems, the AoC was a far better legal expression of Natural Law. The Federalists, if you read them carefully and in context, were definitely not the heroes of Classical Liberalism and Enlightenment as we are often led to believe.

[HVACTech]

Gentlemen,

Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.

It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.

Bill Buppert

no, it did not. they accepted it as a fact. (and also put something in place to eliminate it, if not) they had bigger fish to fry, slavery was on it's way out the door anyhow.

defend your other point, please.

or are they one and the same..

[HVACTech]

Nonsense. Aside from the Bill Of Rights, it has almost nothing to do with Natural Law. Despite its problems, the AoC was a far better legal expression of Natural Law. The Federalists, if you read them carefully and in context, were definitely not the heroes of Classical Liberalism and Enlightenment as we are often led to believe.

you have NO idea what you are talking about. you are like an A/C guy doing Refrigeration service work, yeah you got a clue, just enough to be dangerous.
so, wise guy, what was the original intent? was it based on something?...mebbe?

if I have done a poor job of defining the meaning of "original intent" why don't you go me one better?

[Deborah K]

Strife is not an excuse for lawlessness and tyranny. That's an old-fashioned imperialist game to keep the subjects busy and obedient. If I were so inclined, I could make up ex post facto justifications for just about all government crimes based partly or entirely on "strife".

Not sure where I said it was. I'm not excusing the fact that the Constitution has been subverted since the beginning, due to strife. I'm disagreeing with your stance that the Founders lived under the "best of circumstances". And I agree that even they couldn't live up to the standards put forth in the Constitution. I stated that here:

I would argue that the founding era was not "the best possible circumstances". But I would agree that even the Founders couldn't live up to the high standards which were set in the Constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

you have NO idea what you are talking about. you are like an A/C guy doing Refrigeration service work, yeah you got a clue, just enough to be dangerous.
so, wise guy, what was the original intent? was it based on something?...mebbe?

if I have done a poor job of defining the meaning of "original intent" why don't you go me one better?

Your ad hominem and condescension do not impress. Your counterpoint is full of fail. No one knows exactly what the "original intent" was, (unless you can read the minds of dead people), but we can glean ideas from what they left behind. Hell, SCOTUS makes up their own version of "original intent" quite routinely. Have you read "Hamilton's Curse"? If not, do so. DiLorenzo goes into quite great detail in explaining how the Federalists betrayed the spirit and "Principles Of '76".

[Origanalist]

Sorry I can't +rep you anymore for now. You're doing great things in this thread.

Done.

[HVACTech]

Your ad hominem does not impress. Your counterpoint is full of fail. No one knows exactly what the "original intent" was, (unless you can read the minds of dead people), but we can glean ideas from what they left behind. Have you read "Hamilton's Curse"? If not, do so. DiLorenzo goes into quite great detail in explaining how the Federalists betrayed the spirit and "Principles Of '76".

OMG! I hate it when that happens!

just because you can work on a heat pump does NOT mean that you are qualified for a multi-deck meat case azzhat.

"original intent" CANNOT be defined... eh..

too complicated for you?

[kcchiefs6465]

Gentlemen,

Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.

It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.

Bill Buppert

Good article.

I don't know if you could pay most to read No Treason or his Letter to Grover Cleveland. Even here. Not many would be up to the task of rebutting his points piece by piece (and I don't blame them really as it would be a futile effort). It's still rather amusing how defensive some get. A document codifying the ownership and return of humans as property, only a minority of the population being able to vote, it never being agreed to nor being legally binding... there really is no case to be made for its supposed greatness. The majority of this country, I'd bet, have never even read the damn thing.

I never did in school, anyways. We barely studied the BoR.

In some regards though, it has slowed the pace of tyranny. Though it was tyrannous itself, things could be worse.

[kcchiefs6465]

OMG! I hate it when that happens!

just because you can work on a heat pump does NOT mean that you are qualified for a multi-deck meat case azzhat.

"original intent" CANNOT be defined... eh..

too complicated for you?

"Original intent" is disputable.

How long before a National Bank was established? Hell, how long before a Congressman was imprisoned for his words?

The recognizing of Natural Law means little when after in power they did what the hell they wanted to regardless. And even regardless of all that, it was never signed, agreed to, and is mostly unread by most all Americans. Social contract theory is a joke. The "representatives" are anything but, the people responsible for the current fiasco are largely unnamed, and no one in particular will ever be held accountable for their crimes.

[Ronin Truth]

It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head. Send in the deprogrammers.

[nobody's_hero]

Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are? I think so. And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it. Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities. The Quakers are sort of an example. They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.

I would say yes as well. And I would say that had the articles of confederation remained in place, we would likely have ended up at this very same point, given the apathy of the populace.

Again, we can point to a particular document and say, 'curse you document!, why did you not stop tyranny?' But tyrants don't fear a paper with words. They fear people with a passion for liberty and the willingness to preserve it.

It is unfortunate that we have only so few of the latter.

[Ronin Truth]

"We the People", my patootie. When it starts out with a bald-faced lie, you should SWAG that you are wading in deep doo-doo. That alone should have been a sufficient BS wake up call for the Federalist's con and the Freemason's hoodwink.

Did NO ONE ever even think to ask, "Hey, where's TJ?". (Paris)

[green73]

Limited government *is* possible. But, it requires diligently violent Men to preserve it.

I say impossible because of the nature of politics: The worst rise to the top.

[Ronin Truth]

Thanks for writing that essay, I just reread it after waking up from a refreshing nap and I'd say it makes a good introduction into taking a more critical review of the documents of the Constitution.

As I said before, I really have to restudy the Constitution, which I should have a chance to do tonight. Going into the document with a more critical eye could be valuable for me... last time I came from a less discerning viewpoint.



Well first off I want to say that not everyone who is critical of the Constitution is an anarchist. I don't think you were implying that, because I don't usually consider myself an anarchist though I will say that sometimes anarchy does seem preferable to what we have now. In any case, that's one reason why along with taking another review of the Constitution, I'd like to review the Articles of Confederation as well. It sucks to admit, but I haven't really looked at them and it's something I should've done a long time ago. In school they hammered us over and over again telling us that the Articles made the Federal Government too "weak" and that they failed... and they never went into much more detail than that.

On your point about adhering to the Constitution... well I think that it goes without saying that our Government would be far smaller if we had stuck by it. It's crazy to think that, even if you are coming from a viewpoint where the Constitution is an enabler of bigger Government, that our current Government doesn't even follow it in over ninety percent of its decisions.

Friendly suggestion: You may want to consider starting your study here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf

[Spikender]

Friendly suggestion: You may want to consider starting your study here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf

Thanks. I actually just got finished rereading the Constitution and Bill of Rights and reading a few articles (punny) about different sections of it that are always called into question.

I've never actually read any of the Anti-Federalist papers other than snippets so this should be enlightening.

[HVACTech]

Nonsense. Aside from the Bill Of Rights, it has almost nothing to do with Natural Law. Despite its problems, the AoC was a far better legal expression of Natural Law. The Federalists, if you read them carefully and in context, were definitely not the heroes of Classical Liberalism and Enlightenment as we are often led to believe.

sorry for the attitude last night.... anyhow. mebbe this might help you to understand.


http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-...tional-law.php

[heavenlyboy34]

sorry for the attitude last night.... anyhow. mebbe this might help you to understand.


http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-...tional-law.php

No worries, mate. Hope I didn't come off as rude either. ~hugs~ Your article doesn't prove its claim. It's well known that the authors of the Constitution were familiar with natural law and the most famous of Natural Lawyers at the time. There's absolutely no doubt about it. At question is whether they applied Natural Law in the Constitution. I disagree. The plain text of the document is not inspired by natural law. The Federalists and other Constitution fanboys at the time made some appeals to natural law, though.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would say yes as well. And I would say that had the articles of confederation remained in place, we would likely have ended up at this very same point, given the apathy of the populace.

Again, we can point to a particular document and say, 'curse you document!, why did you not stop tyranny?' But tyrants don't fear a paper with words. They fear people with a passion for liberty and the willingness to preserve it.

It is unfortunate that we have only so few of the latter.

Exactly. That is why Constitutionalism is a failure in the long run. It's a terribly naive to assume people will have the time and interest to monitor everything Leviathan does. AND even if Boobus was not profoundly ignorant and apathetic, they are still vastly out-gunned. (even vastly more than the Continental Army was. I doubt you have easy access to military gear and enough to supply a successful rebel army.)

[kcchiefs6465]

Thanks. I actually just got finished rereading the Constitution and Bill of Rights and reading a few articles (punny) about different sections of it that are always called into question.

I've never actually read any of the Anti-Federalist papers other than snippets so this should be enlightening.

You should check out It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong by Andrew Napolitano, Who Killed the Constitution? by Tom Woods Jr. and Kevin Gutzman followed by No Treaon: The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner and then A Letter to Grover Cleveland: On His False Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and The Consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People by Lysander Spooner.


Here is the audio book of No Treason, if you'd like to just skip ahead.

Special Thanks to Mises.org



And the text, Special Thanks to LRC.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/l...-no-authority/

An excerpt of No Treason.

Sixth. It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of [*9] the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.

And here is his Letter to Grover Cleveland.

Special Thanks to Project Gutenberg.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35016

An excerpt from that letter:

If A were to go to B, a merchant, and say to him, "Sir, I am a night-watchman, and I insist upon your employing me as such in protecting your property against burglars; and to enable me to do so more effectually, I insist upon your letting me tie your own hands and feet, so that you cannot interfere with me; and also upon your delivering up to me all your keys to your store, your safe, and to all your valuables; and that you authorize me to act solely and fully according to my own will, pleasure, and discretion in the matter; and I demand still further, that you shall give me an absolute guaranty that you will not hold me to any accountability whatever for anything I may do, or for anything that may happen to your goods while they are under my protection; and unless you comply with this proposal, I will now kill you on the spot,"—if A were to say all this to B, B would naturally conclude that A himself was the most impudent and dangerous burglar that he (B) had to fear; and that if he (B) wished to secure his property against burglars, his best way would be to kill A in the first place, and then take his chances against all such other burglars as might come afterwards.

Our government constantly acts the part that is here supposed to be acted by A. And it is just as impudent a scoundrel as A is here supposed to be. It insists that every man shall give up all his rights unreservedly into its custody, and then hold it wholly irresponsible for any disposal it may make of them. And it gives him no alternative but death.

If by putting a bayonet to a man's breast, and giving him his choice, to die, or be "protected in his rights," it secures his consent to the latter alternative, it then proclaims itself a free government,—a government resting on consent!

You yourself describe such a government as "the best government ever vouchsafed to man."

Can you tell me of one that is worse in principle?

But perhaps you will say that ours is not so bad, in principle, as the others, for the reason that here, once in two, four, or six years, each male adult is permitted to have one vote in ten millions, in choosing the public protectors. Well, if you think that that materially alters the case, I wish you joy of your remarkable discernment.

Lysander Spooner. A Letter to Grover Cleveland / On His False Inaugural Address, The Usurpations and Crimes / of Lawmakers and Judges, and the Consequent Poverty, / Ignorance, and Servitude Of The People (Kindle Locations 284-302).

[56ktarget]

The right to own a gun is the only reason you still have the right to flap your dick-sucker. On second thought YOU (a communist) would still have the right, all opposed would be imprisoned for speaking their minds, kind of like Europe is today.

Paulite thinking:

"The way you affect change in a republic is through the barrel of a gun"