The U.S. Constitution: Pro-Freedom?

[pcosmar]

And look what the CONstitution did. Commander in Chief ring a little bell?

and that only upon a Declared War..and only over Military Forces..

and the Standing Army was to Be Disbanded..


Violations of the Constitution are Not valid arguments against the Document Violated.

[PAF]

The same recourse they would have if it didn't exist: the balls to do something about it, to alter or even abolish government. But again that responsibility rests entirely on the people, not a piece of paper. You could sneak into the national archives and replace the Constitution with some kindergartener's first finger-painting, and it wouldn't change much.

However on my list of priorities of things to change about the federal government, getting rid of the Constitution and the BoR with it, would not make the first thousand pages.

Especially when there are people who are ALSO calling for the abolition of that 'racist document hatched by white nationalists' because they want to rule uncontested in a vacuum devoid of any common principles. I cannot abide that.

The constitution, at least, is as Jefferson put it:

"a text to which those who are watchful may again rally & recall the people: they fix too for the people principles for their political creed."

You mean like insurrection, like on Jan6? The CONstitution doesn't permit such acts. As it stands, Fed.gov just recently put The People in-their-place. AmIRight?

[pcosmar]

Simple: The power to TAX, and delegate authority. Try telling Fed.gov you disagree with something on a personal level and that you don't want to pay taxes toward that. And State.gov too for that matter.

Until The Socialist Coup and the Central Bank,,tax was minimal.. and NONE on Guns.

and you could order a Machine Gun from Sears,, Mail delivery without Question.

[PAF]

and that only upon a Declared War..and only over Military Forces..

and the Standing Army was to Be Disbanded..


Violations of the Constitution are Not valid arguments against the Document Violated.

Anytime you "vote" and give your "CENSENT" = unlimited powers to the prez, like GWB did for an example.

[pcosmar]

You mean like insurrection, like on Jan6? The CONstitution doesn't permit such acts. As it stands, Fed.gov just recently put The People in-their-place. AmIRight?

If you were standing in front of me,, you wouldn't be.

Phuck You..

[PAF]

Until The Socialist Coup and the Central Bank,,tax was minimal.. and NONE on Guns.

and you could order a Machine Gun from Sears,, Mail delivery without Question.

So "minimal" is good. Got it.

Tell me, when will there be a time, permitted by the CONstitution, where we won't have to pay any tax if we don't want to, and Fed/State.gov will "allow" people to have machine guns and hand grenades again? You know, to beat up those LEO who like to kill first even when the person isn't harming person or property?

[PAF]

If you were standing in front of me,, you wouldn't be.

Phuck You..

Well, idle words on a screen, but whateva. I've delt with many in this country and others. I don't fear too easily, prolly cause I'm not afraid to die. I'd much rather spring for a beer ;-)

[nobody's_hero]

You mean like insurrection, like on Jan6? The CONstitution doesn't permit such acts. As it stands, Fed.gov just recently put The People in-their-place. AmIRight?

Well let's not forget that half the people here joined in the chorus of admonishing and ridiculing them, for specifics I'm not going to get into here, because I know how quickly it would derail the thread.

About that little insurrection . . .

[acptulsa]

Well, idle words on a screen, but whateva. I've delt with many in this country and others. I don't fear too easily, prolly cause I'm not afraid to die. I'd much rather spring for a beer ;-)

Give the man credit. Decades ago he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the thing, and he's still trying.

[PAF]

Give the man credit. Decades ago he took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the thing, and he's still trying.

The CONstitution "made him do it" lol

[pcosmar]

I'd much rather spring for a beer ;-)

save the beer for this one,, you seem so Same Page.

[donnay]

Here is why it is so difficult to reach people who have been indoctrinated, most if not all, of their lives: One provides them with something, such as the truth, hard-evidence, examples, and they immediately And yet they ignore everything that you try to get across to them, and expect you to revert backward and follow their time-proven failed path.

As to your last sentence, liberty comes from within. I do not have a communist mentality where one "side" is better than the "other" therefore I must choose between the two. If each individual embraces and practices individualism and sets the example for others, maybe it still would not be overwhelming, but certainly would be more accepted, and we would be a little freer.

@nobody's_hero and @donnay, did you even take the time to listen to the entire short video? I would be more than happy to debate the actual content of what was said in the video, if there are specifics examples that you disagree with.

I am with @pcosmar. I have heard all the crap before, I listened to the first 5 minutes, I am just not interested.

[PAF]

save the beer for this one,, you seem so Same Page.

I tried to be polite and listen to the first couple of minutes, but... a chick with a mask, a bunch of dudes "pledging" to a flag instead of themselves, I lost interest. To me it looks like another version of the commies I can't stand.

[pcosmar]

I am with @pcosmar. I have heard all the crap before, I listened to the first 5 minutes, I am just not interested.

not far from him to her.

[Snowball]

The same recourse they would have if it didn't exist: the balls to do something about it, to alter or even abolish government.

That uncodified, vague sentiment is from the DoI, not the CON. Unlike the state constititions and the AoC, the CON did not respect the states as sovereign entities. The First Amendment was a shot across the bow. The First Amendment prohibits the Congress from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Therefore most state constitutions were made irrelevant to the federal body right form the get-go. To consider how the CON differed in its First Amendment from the states, see these links:
https://investortimes.com/freedomout...n-state-level/
http://restore-christian-america.org/statechurches.html

[PAF]

I am with @pcosmar. I have heard all the crap before, I listened to the first 5 minutes, I am just not interested.

So, what is exactly that you want me to "Educate and UNITE" about? I lost track.

[CCTelander]

Even within the so-called “liberty movement” telling people the truth tends to piss them off, apparently.

Larkin is right.

The CONstitution was a Federalist coup. The only part of it worth the parchment it was written on is the Bill of Rights, and even that has been grossly insufficient to the purpose of securing liberty.

We either seize and hold our liberty as truly free people or we don’t. CONstitutions don’t secure liberty. People determined to be free do that. Clinging to the fantasy of the CONstitution just gets in the way and produces no useful progress toward the goal of being free.

[nobody's_hero]

Even within the so-called “liberty movement” telling people the truth tends to piss them off, apparently.

Larkin is right.

The CONstitution was a Federalist coup. The only part of it worth the parchment it was written on is the Bill of Rights, and even that has been grossly insufficient to the purpose of securing liberty.

We either seize and hold our liberty as truly free people or we don’t. CONstitutions don’t secure liberty. People determined to be free do that. Clinging to the fantasy of the CONstitution just gets in the way and produces no useful progress toward the goal of being free.

So let's get rid of it. See if anything changes.

I would probably make a copy of it and stash it somewhere first though, just in case things don't work out as wonderfully as advertised.

[Invisible Man]

CONstitutions don’t secure liberty. People determined to be free do that.

Do they really though?

[PAF]

So let's get rid of it. See if anything changes.

I already did that. I know I keep mentioning it, but An Agorist Primer can really help wake one up to what one can really do ;-)

[nobody's_hero]

I already did that. I know I keep mentioning it, but An Agorist Primer can really help wake one up to what one can really do ;-)

Yeah, and as far as I can tell, you being an agorist has changed nothing about the existence of the United States Government. —Which, incidentally, has been my point this entire thread.

The moment you use force, particularly any form of organized force, even if only for the purpose to defend your rights, you have formed a de facto government. And you wouldn't even need a constitution to do it.

[mt4rp]

Those that support (via their vote) a system of governance that doesn't allow for one to opt out of (no longer consent to) and remain on the land of their birth , refuse to recognize they are in part, imposing their collective will on others with no moral foundation from which to do so....Why won't you let me be free?

[CCTelander]

So let's get rid of it. See if anything changes.

I would probably make a copy of it and stash it somewhere first though, just in case things don't work out as wonderfully as advertised.

You’re apparently missing the point.

There’s no need to “get rid of it.” It’s been a dead letter from the word “go” anyway. The ink hadn’t even fully dried on the parchment before the Federalist usurpers started violating their precious CONstitution.

As Spooner correctly noted it was either intended from the start to produce the monstrosity of a government that we’ve got, or it was powerless to prevent it. Either way it certainly does not deserve the reverence and worship bordering on zealotry that CONstitution lovers so generously heap upon it. We either face reality and act in accordance with it, or we let comforting fantasy render us ineffectual. I choose the former.

[PAF]

Yeah, and as far as I can tell, you being an agorist has changed nothing about the existence of the United States Government. —Which, incidentally, has been my point this entire thread.

Read @mt4rp and @CCTelander responses above. They get +REP.

@nobody's_hero, you are thinking and putting too much thought and energy into collectiveness. Think and act as a sovereign individual, perhaps.

[pcosmar]

Think and act as a sovereign individual, perhaps.

That won't put Gas in the Tank..

You need a Corporation and Supply Chain.

No man is an Island.

[nobody's_hero]

Read @mt4rp and @CCTelander responses above. They get +REP.

@nobody's_hero, you are thinking and putting too much thought and energy into collectiveness. Think and act as a sovereign individual, perhaps.

We're just talking past each other.

As the Texan often sarcastically (but correctly) points out, collectivism is unavoidable. If for example, you have a bunch of individuals who all collectively agree that the rights of the individual should not be violated, well that creates somewhat of conundrum doesn't it? It's like, do you want to be part of that group or . . .lol.

The thing is, you're going to need a group like that if a (usually much larger) collective of people who hold absolute disdain for the rights of the individual shows up at your door, if you have any hope of resistance. And that, kids, is how baby governments are made.

[Snowball]

PAF we agree on a lot but agorism and praxeology are not among them. You should consider the ironies of your position. When you have a materialist midset, that is restrictive and not applicable to the human soul in its totality. The human soul is imbued by God with a desire for more than materialism and man cannot be reduced to biological causes. Also, it is inherent in the human nature to collectivise and form groups, not only for the acclimation of basic needs but for comraderie and cultural spirit. Agorism is a self-defeating principle on the macro level. All societies need laws because humans are a fallen creature. There is no absolute freedom in this world except in our hearts as we contemplate and experience the Spirit and long for the restoration of all things.

[PAF]

We're just talking past each other.

As the Texan often sarcastically (but correctly) points out, collectivism is unavoidable. If for example, you have a bunch of individuals who all collectively agree that the rights of the individual should not be violated, well that creates somewhat of conundrum doesn't it? It's like, do you want to be part of that group or . . .lol.

The thing is, you're going to need a group like that if a collective of people who hold absolute disdain for the rights of the individual shows up at your door, if you have any hope of resistance. And that, kids, is how baby governments are made.

One doesn't need "government" to form groups of voluntarists. I doubt very much a bunch of leftists, or rightists will bang on my door, and if they did, I can defend myself, and if not, I know enough people who would stand by my side.

But then, like Larken truthfully states, who has Stole, Murdered and Conquered more than all of the individual criminals in this world put together? Yep - Government. So why on earth would I want said Government to solve my problems for me?

[CCTelander]

We're just talking past each other.

As the Texan often sarcastically (but correctly) points out, collectivism is unavoidable. If for example, you have a bunch of individuals who all collectively agree that the rights of the individual should not be violated, well that creates somewhat of conundrum doesn't it? It's like, do you want to be part of that group or . . .lol.

The thing is, you're going to need a group like that if a (usually much larger) collective of people who hold absolute disdain for the rights of the individual shows up at your door, if you have any hope of resistance. And that, kids, is how baby governments are made.

No, actually, it isn’t.

An agreement to VOLUNTARILY cooperate for our mutual defense is the very farthest thing from a government imaginable. For it to become a government a small group of it’s members would have to be given authority to coerce everyone else into or out of certain otherwise allowable behaviors against their will. Since no such thing is necessary or desirable to provide for mutual defense, no government ever need come into being.

[PAF]

PAF we agree on a lot but agorism and praxeology are not among them. You should consider the ironies of your position. When you have a materialist midset, that is restrictive and not applicable to the human soul in its totality. The human soul is imbued by God with a desire for more than materialism and man cannot be reduced to biological causes. Also, it is inherent in the human nature to collectivise and form groups, not only for the acclimation of basic needs but for comraderie and cultural spirit. Agorism is a self-defeating principle on the macro level. All societies need laws because humans are a fallen creature. There is no absolute freedom in this world except in our hearts as we contemplate and experience the Spirit and long for the restoration of all things.

I understand some of the points that you make, so respectfully we will agree to disagree. I can only speak for myself, and maybe offer an alternative for what might work for others as well. I can tell you that Agorism isn't an overnight lesson. It takes thought, practice and a willingness to weight Risk-versus-Reward which eventually becomes a way of life. For me personally it has worked out tremendously well and I will never go back. Everybody's life is different, with different sets of circumstances. One thing is certain - truth, NAP (unless in self-defense) and a desire to make ones own path should always be promoted and never stifled. What other people choose to do, that's on them.