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
Connect With Us