Our US Constitution is NOT a social contract.

[HVACTech]

our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people. therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you?
you would not.

it's purpose and function was to Unite The States. it was a contract between the states and the fedgov. that's it.
social contracts DO require Consent, that is not available or needed at this level.
it's expressed purpose was to act as a shield for the people. and as a referee between the states.

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

YES. the US Constitution is an anti-state document.
it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

[Danke]

Fishing for trolls I see. You bored?

[HVACTech]

Fishing for trolls I see. You bored?

yah. a good friend on mine. (was a basic neocon) is taking the courses at Hillsdale college.

http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution...ampaign=con101

he is now on the 2nd level.. and we talk about it daily.
check this out dude, the education that we got back in the day, is holding up pretty darn good.
ceptin of course for that "anti-federalist" guy. I KNOW what that means now...

this site has anti-constitution gatekeepers....
and in case you have not noticed, they promote open rebellion as the ONLY just option.

I am here to PROMOTE and explain the US Constitution.
for that is what Dr Paul did for us.

[fr33]

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

What does "local" mean to you? Did you sign up for whatever "local" means? Did I?

[HVACTech]

What does "local" mean to you? Did you sign up for whatever "local" means? Did I?

can you push "consent" lower than that?

pontificate thus.

[heavenlyboy34]

Fishing for trolls I see. You bored?

He is a troll, though...

[mrsat_98]

Hope this helps.

[Ronin Truth]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

[fisharmor]

it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

[Origanalist]

///

[Ender]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

Yep- my thoughts exactly.

[A Son of Liberty]

our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people. therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you?
you would not.

it's purpose and function was to Unite The States. it was a contract between the states and the fedgov. that's it.
social contracts DO require Consent, that is not available or needed at this level.
it's expressed purpose was to act as a shield for the people. and as a referee between the states.

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

YES. the US Constitution is an anti-state document.
it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

lol

And "the states" are...?

I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.

They're not. They're figments of your imagination.

[heavenlyboy34]

"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell

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

[HVACTech]

Yep- my thoughts exactly.

c'mon guys, did any of you read the first sentence?

The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today.

he is stating that we do not have the constitution today. and he is correct.

It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on.

the constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1789. the bill of rights was added in 1791.

[HVACTech]

lol

And "the states" are...?

I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.

They're not. They're figments of your imagination.

I understand the meaning of the word state.

Changes of state are physical changes in matter. They are reversible changes that do not involve changes in matter's chemical makeup or chemical properties. Common changes of state include melting, freezing, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and vaporization.

and yes, I am in a Texas state of mind.
(I used the word in a sentence)

perhaps you could share your double ought secret meaning of this word?

[A Son of Liberty]

[HVACTech]

please show me SOMETHING! ANYTHING! that you think applies to the people in the
US Constitution.
this question excludes the other two documents.

[HVACTech]

ya got me! that is a state alright!

[Ronin Truth]

c'mon guys, did any of you read the first sentence?



he is stating that we do not have the constitution today. and he is correct.




the constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1789. the bill of rights was added in 1791.

Ratification by some was contingent on a Bill of Rights being added.

[Sonny Tufts]

please show me SOMETHING! ANYTHING! that you think applies to the people in the
US Constitution.

The criminalization of counterfeiting and piracy.
The definition of treason.
The prohibition of slavery.
The granting of authority to Congress to enact patent and copyright laws.
The grant of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over D.C. and federal enclaves.

Shall I go on, or do you think that the people are somehow free to pass funny money, own slaves, infringe copyrights, or do anything they want in D.C.?

[ProIndividual]

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not.

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1]

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

Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours".

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Illegitimate

[heavenlyboy34]

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not.



Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours".

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Illegitimate

It ought to be so, but US Constitutional statism is not. I dedicated a thread some months ago to requesting a sound legal theory from Constituitonalists-crickets.

[ProIndividual]

It ought to be so, but US Constitutional statism is not. I dedicated a thread some months ago to requesting a sound legal theory from Constituitonalists-crickets.

I didn't mean to say SOUND legal theory, only a legal theory. If they had no legal theory (social contract theory) they'd not think it legitimate. And if they were amoralists (those egoists who deny ethics even exist) they'd not have any legal theory, as all legal theories are necessarily preceded by ethical theories.

The thread I started on the social contract goes into why the legal theory they base the state's legitimacy on is indeed unsound. But it is a legal theory, and that legal theory is based on an ethical theory...neither is sound, is the problem.

[kcchiefs6465]

The Constitution is indeed based on social contract theory. The consolidation of power was, and is, predictable.

You accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things described in a 200 year old document. That is better than those who accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things which aren't described in the Constitution, I suppose, but regardless your logic is flawed.

[HVACTech]

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not.



Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours".

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Illegitimate

That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory

thank you,

now, lets move on to the meaning of the word "STATE" shall we?
"I am in a Texas state of mind".

we have a "state" called Virginia. was this "state" always known thusly? no, it was NOT.
before it became the "state" of Virginia, it was probably in another state. or, perhaps not in any state at all. (wilderness)

as an HVACTech, I DO know the meaning of the word "state"

Changes of state are physical changes in matter. They are reversible changes that do not involve changes in matter's chemical makeup or chemical properties. Common changes of state include melting, freezing, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and vaporization.

I am STILL waiting for the double ought secret meaning of this word for you.
please enlighten me sir.

[HVACTech]

The criminalization of counterfeiting and piracy.
The definition of treason.
The prohibition of slavery.
The granting of authority to Congress to enact patent and copyright laws.
The grant of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over D.C. and federal enclaves.

Shall I go on, or do you think that the people are somehow free to pass funny money, own slaves, infringe copyrights, or do anything they want in D.C.?

most of what you speak of is as a result of poor amendments.
most ALL of the amendments past the first 12 are in fact, unconstitutional.

and sir, something that "affects" the people,
is NOT the same as something that "applies" to the people.

[HVACTech]

The Constitution is indeed based on social contract theory. The consolidation of power was, and is, predictable.

You accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things described in a 200 year old document. That is better than those who accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things which aren't described in the Constitution, I suppose, but regardless your logic is flawed.

darn, and I thought you were one of the good ones...

you are an anti-federalist and desire a "document" (contract) that is NOT 200 years old?

so, you. want a new FRESH document? or NO document (contract) at all?

[kcchiefs6465]

darn, and I thought you were one of the good ones...

you are an anti-federalist and desire a "document" (contract) that is NOT 200 years old?

so, you. want a new FRESH document? or NO document (contract) at all?

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

[heavenlyboy34]

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

+megarep. Preach on, brother!

[HVACTech]

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

is this what you tell new members who join the site? is that your expressed purpose for being here?
to bash them with your rep power?
I wager that runs a lot of them off.
oh, look, and it would seem another high ranking member has joined the fray. right below this post.

both of you do not support this website either financially or in spirit.
imagine that!