The U.S. Constitution: Pro-Freedom?

[PAF]

I pay tax on everything.

I don't. Sure, there are taxes on things I am forced to pay, but as an Agorist, I make certain I avoid taxation at all risk-versus-reward cost.

but less than $30 a month.

Damn, that's still high. Unless you're counting mortgage.

I think Govt should run from a TIP Jar. and less of it,

Of course. Just like communism, the tip jar would ask for more.

The Constitution was that model.. what has been done in the last 200 years,, is a Violation of the Constitution.

and you are judging something that has not been in used at all in the last 100 years.
It's bad because it was discarded by nefarious individuals working in concert to destroy it.

No, actually, that is exactly what it was designed to do. All you have to do is open it and read it.

pretty lame thought process.

I was just thinking... nah, never mind ;-)

[pcosmar]

@PAF

I finished my Parole in Key West. and Owned a Home on Big Coppitt Key. Likely the most libertarian City in the US.

Still had Corrupt Govt..

It is a reality since Nimrod,, and will not end till Christ Returns.

I live freer than most,, but it is still Reality.

[nobody's_hero]

There are simple, practical and effective ways of preventing such outcomes once we get to the point that it becomes necessary.

As far as “philosophical masterbatory threads” go, it seems to me that CONstitutional fantasIes qualify as such as well. The difference is that in real life, where CONstitutions have been tried, they have UNIVERSALLY FAILED, miserably.

In those few instances where some form of statelessness has been tried, it usually works out rather well, until conquered by an outside force.

Modern technology provides ways to prevent that eventuality too, but you’re not really interested in those kinds of “masterbatory” ideas it seems.

Keep on doing that CONstitution fap then. To each his own, I guess.

You misunderstand me. I don't think the mere existence of the Constitution will keep us free. (there are those who do, and are acting just as foolishly as those who stamp their feet saying' this damn piece of paper is the root of all evil.')

A constitution is not some As-Seen-On-90's-TV infomercial rotisserie oven that you just "set it and forget it." Anyone looking for a form of government that thinks that is possible, is going to be sorely disappointed.

What you are describing in bold is not a failure of the Constitution, it is a dereliction of duty by the people. It is a failure of the people to see to it that it is upheld. If the constitution turned to ash and blew away tomorrow, it's not magically going to make people form a backbone, or understand that not every issue has to be settled at the Federal level.

To give you an example:

Roe V Wade: Even after R v W has been overturned, half the country wants a federal law to ban abortion. Half the country wants a federal law to protect abortion. If by some miracle you could get both sides to agree that the Feds don't even have the Constitutional authority to consider the issue, I'd consider that magnificent progress away from the status quo.

And then, somewhere in the far corners of the internet, is a man named Larkin holding a comparatively inconsequential lesson on whether the Constitution should even exist.

(^that sir, is mental masturbation.)

The Canadians just ignored their Charter of Rights. (the one that even the last living author came out and said the Canadian parliament was in gross violation of with the whole trucker convoy/vax mandate thing). It's even younger than our Bill of Rights (by a lot).

Stupid ol' charter of rights and freedoms!



Or was it the Canadians' fault?

[mt4rp]

Edited to add: why is communism, fascism, statism, always accepted as the norm, even when they are repugnant to society and viscously fought against, yet any talk of Agorism and Voluntarism is always, always, rejected - even by the so-called freedom lovers?

Because some people except the notion of a "necessary evil" and too few of us don't.

[Invisible Man]

I pay tax on everything.
but less than $30 a month.

I think Govt should run from a TIP Jar. and less of it,

The Constitution was that model.. what has been done in the last 200 years,, is a Violation of the Constitution.

and you are judging something that has not been in used at all in the last 100 years.
It's bad because it was discarded by nefarious individuals working in concert to destroy it.

pretty lame thought process.

The government under the Constitution had only been operational for 2 years when Washington began to take action against the Whiskey Rebellion using federal troops on American soil, killing a few of the insurrectionists and ultimately hanging two more (it would have been many more if they had not successfully fled, forced to be fugitives in their own land). It was the original Waco siege.

The Alien and Sedition acts became law only a few years later.

So that model that you say the Constitution was came to be destroyed when it was hardly out of the gate, by the very people who championed its ratification, which leads back to the claim that this was their intent all along.

[PAF]

@PAF

I finished my Parole in Key West. and Owned a Home on Big Coppitt Key. Likely the most libertarian City in the US.

Still had Corrupt Govt..

It is a reality since Nimrod,, and will not end till Christ Returns.

I live freer than most,, but it is still Reality.

I get you, @pcosmar, but even the most libertarian city, where government is still involved, it's not really free. The illusion that it is might quell most folks. If you feel that you live freer than most, that is all that matters. Too bad we can't visit each other for a spell to see who actually lives freer, and funner, because if I can't have fun doing something, what's even the point? I'll be 6 foot under soon enough ;-)

[Snowball]

Roe V Wade: Even after R v W has been overturned, half the country wants a federal law to ban abortion. Half the country wants a federal law to protect abortion. If by some miracle you could get both sides to agree that the Feds don't even have the Constitutional authority to consider the issue, I'd consider that magnificent progress away from the status quo.

Seriously what in the world do you think is accomplished by turning the states (and territories) into 51-57 separate battlegrounds over this issue? Nothing is gained whatsoever. The Congress, Executive and Judiciary of the United States can indeed pass laws and rulings that encompass abortion. It is pertinent to the Bill of Rights if the unborn is a person or not, that must be decided, or it will always be a political issue 50+ places separately. Commerce between states regarding this is also under Federal jurisdiction. It will be solved ultimately on the national level, not state. Roe v Wade was decided and rejected rightly as a Federal matter. It is a Bill of Rights interpretive matter.

An agorist might say, abortion is allowed between two private parties, but is there not a third party or even a fourth or fifth that has skin in the game?

The First Amendment demands no preference for religious belief. Any opinion on life's biggest questions is of equal respect. I believe that is one of its fatal flaws, out of many, on this issue and many others.

[nobody's_hero]

Seriously what in the world do you think is accomplished by turning the states (and territories) into 51-57 separate battlegrounds over this issue? Nothing is gained whatsoever. The Congress, Executive and Judiciary of the United States can indeed pass laws and rulings that encompass abortion. It is pertinent to the Bill of Rights if the unborn is a person or not, that must be decided, or it will always be a political issue 50+ places separately. Commerce between states regarding this is also under Federal jurisdiction. It will be solved ultimately on the national level, not state. Roe v Wade was decided and rejected rightly as a Federal matter. It is a Bill of Rights interpretive matter.

An agorist might say, abortion is allowed between two private parties, but is there not a third party or even a fourth or fifth that has skin in the game?

The First Amendment demands no preference for religious belief. Any opinion on life's biggest questions is of equal respect. I believe that is one of its fatal flaws, out of many, on this issue and many others.

Well because for one, all the people who think abortion should be legal can leave my state, and go live with the weirdos in California (or Kansas, apparently). If I could kick them out of the country I probably would, but I can settle for kicking them out of the state.

I could ask the same thing of you, in which, what do you think will be accomplished by perpetually flipping back and forth on the issue at the federal level?

To give another example: The states have made more progress in having flexible policies on marijuana simply by ignoring the Federal laws against it and deciding for themselves. Some states still prohibit it. Some states make exceptions for medical use. Some states have decriminalized it. Some states have made it outright legalized. Drug use is personally not my hill to die on, but good grief how long will the wasteful War on Drugs last if we keep chocking the responsibility to the Feds on the matter?

Texas is doing a better job of keeping drugs out the country than Washington DC. WTF are we paying the feds for?

I firmly believe you'd see more lives saved by leaving the matter of abortion to the states than leaving it in the hands of D.C.

[PAF]

Seriously what in the world do you think is accomplished by turning the states (and territories) into 51-57 separate battlegrounds over this issue? Nothing is gained whatsoever. The Congress, Executive and Judiciary of the United States can indeed pass laws and rulings that encompass abortion. It is pertinent to the Bill of Rights if the unborn is a person or not, that must be decided, or it will always be a political issue 50+ places separately. Commerce between states regarding this is also under Federal jurisdiction. It will be solved ultimately on the national level, not state. Roe v Wade was decided and rejected rightly as a Federal matter. It is a Bill of Rights interpretive matter.

An agorist might say, abortion is allowed between two private parties, but is there not a third party or even a fourth or fifth that has skin in the game?

The First Amendment demands no preference for religious belief. Any opinion on life's biggest questions is of equal respect. I believe that is one of its fatal flaws, out of many, on this issue and many others.

THIS Agorist believes that the right of the unborn child should be protected and is the primary person involved [NAP]. I also believe that matters especially such as this need to stay completely out of politics. The person seeking an abortion will find a way to do it, even by going underground, and that throwing endless money at laws, enforcement, etc. would be throwing money into the toilet.

If the woman was standing directly in front of me while trying to murder the baby inside of her, I would take action to at least protect the baby for the time being, as gently as possible, understanding that in the near future there would be nothing that I could do about it. Nobody said life is perfect or a bed of roses. Life has challenges.

[Sonny Tufts]

The government under the Constitution had only been operational for 2 years when Washington began to take action against the Whiskey Rebellion using federal troops on American soil, killing a few of the insurrectionists and ultimately hanging two more (it would have been many more if they had not successfully fled, forced to be fugitives in their own land). It was the original Waco siege...

So that model that you say the Constitution was came to be destroyed when it was hardly out of the gate, by the very people who championed its ratification, which leads back to the claim that this was their intent all along.

Since giving the federal government the authority to tax (something it didn't have under the Articles of Confederation) was a principal feature of the Constitution, how was it destroyed by the imposition of the Whiskey Tax? I'll give you the Alien and Sedition Acts, but enforcing a tax that the States had given the federal government the authority to enact shouldn't have come as a surprise.

[Invisible Man]

Since giving the federal government the authority to tax (something it didn't have under the Articles of Confederation) was a principal feature of the Constitution, how was it destroyed by the imposition of the Whiskey Tax? I'll give you the Alien and Sedition Acts, but enforcing a tax that the States had given the federal government the authority to enact shouldn't have come as a surprise.

I was replying to pcosmar's post in which he said he favored a government funded by a tip jar and said that this was the model the Constitution gave us. It is in his view that this original constitution was later destroyed.

I don't share his view. I say it was never meant to be like the model he idealizes. The putting down of the Whiskey Rebellion was the fruit of the Constitution, and by design.

[Snowball]

THIS Agorist believes that the right of the unborn child should be protected and is the primary person involved [NAP]. I also believe that matters especially such as this need to stay completely out of politics. The person seeking an abortion will find a way to do it, even by going underground, and that throwing endless money at laws, enforcement, etc. would be throwing money into the toilet.

If the woman was standing directly in front of me while trying to murder the baby inside of her, I would take action to at least protect the baby for the time being, as gently as possible, understanding that in the near future there would be nothing that I could do about it. Nobody said life is perfect or a bed of roses. Life has challenges.

But you admit, that another agorist might not agree with you and take the other position. So, abortion is legal under agorism. Your position is private, and so is theirs. It's effectively the same we are living with.

You say money would be thrown away to enforce the law against it. I say, no, there is no reason for money to enter the equation at all. We have been brainwashed into thinking government has to spend money to do anything. It does not, and certainly not in any wasteful manner. You just send in the goons, and they get the message. Done.

[Snowball]

Well because for one, all the people who think abortion should be legal can leave my state, and go live with the weirdos in California (or Kansas, apparently). If I could kick them out of the country I probably would, but I can settle for kicking them out of the state.

I could ask the same thing of you, in which, what do you think will be accomplished by perpetually flipping back and forth on the issue at the federal level?

It's a bill of rights issue, ergo Federal. I suppose in the meantime, states will fight over it and we'll be harassed by the pernacious annoyance.
In a Christian country, it would simply be illegal in all cases except death of the mother being a real prospect (her choice then). Fini.

[PAF]

But you admit, that another agorist might not agree with you and take the other position. So, abortion is legal under agorism. Your position is private, and so is theirs. It's effectively the same we are living with.

You say money would be thrown away to enforce the law against it. I say, no, there is no reason for money to enter the equation at all. We have been brainwashed into thinking government has to spend money to do anything. It does not, and certainly not in any wasteful manner. You just send in the goons, and they get the message. Done.

Hmm, I need to think on that... so far the Agorists in my circle believe the unborn child is the primary person involved, and that via the NAP the Voluntarist would try to protect it if directly involved in that situation. Maybe there are Agorists who believe that abortion is ok, or that the baby is considered the 3rd person, I'm just not aware of any.

Yes, money does enter the equation. That and power are the basis of most evil. The goons are there to enforce the revolving door, whether in support or opposition. "Crimes" are committed every day, just and/or unjust, and the state in the general sense always profits, and hires more goons while hiking taxes.

[Snowball]

while hiking taxes.

what taxes? Those aren't necessary, either. Goons are volunteers or appointments. They are rewarded with benefits or real goods at the crown disposal. No cost. No debt, ever. No taxes. Coin or currency is made by the crown or council, its sole source. None of it is tracked or traded against, so as disrupt ethical and truly free markets. Financial markets would not be open to speculators. Anyone seeking to weaken the crown/council authority on money would be thrown in gaol and fed moldy bread and warm water.

[PAF]

what taxes? Those aren't necessary, either. Goons are volunteers or appointments. They are rewarded with benefits or real goods at the crown disposal. No cost. No debt, ever. No taxes. Coin or currency is made by the crown or council, its sole source. None of it is tracked or traded against, so inflation would occur. Financial markets would not exist. Anyone seeking to weaken the crown/council authority on money would be thrown in gaol and fed moldy bread and warm water.

I think I lost you along the way.

As for the bold, who is to say what money should be and that it should be the sole source? I have left over scraps of wood from a table I was making and want to trade it for 4 bags of green beans. I also have left over pesos from my last trip and thought I'd give them up if he helps me with the engine for the drag car I'm building.

I agree, no taxes necessary.

[nobody's_hero]

It's a bill of rights issue, ergo Federal a 10th Amendment issue.

Again you completely ignore the 10th Amendment, but . . . you aren't alone. You're joined by over 2 centuries of people who completely ignored it.

Or maybe the Constitution was supposed to jump out of its glass display case and elbow-drop the first guy who tried to ignore it, keeping with the logic of the thread. Useless piece of paper.

[Snowball]

I think I lost you along the way.

As for the bold, who is to say what money should be and that it should be the sole source? I have left over scraps of wood from a table I was making and want to trade it for 4 bags of green beans. I also have left over pesos from my last trip and thought I'd give them up if he helps me with the engine for the drag car I'm building.

We could have that discussion but it would be either paper fiat or metals because that's what people are used to. Of course you are free to use your own scraps of wood with anyone that will accept them. Private monies are fine and of your choice as long as they don't seek to counterdict or harm the crown's money which cannot be forbidden, but must not always be used.

[Snowball]

Again you completely ignore the 10th Amendment, but . . . you aren't alone. You're joined by over 2 centuries of people who completely ignored it.

Or maybe the Constitution was supposed to jump out of its glass display case and elbow-drop the first guy who tried to ignore it, keeping with the logic of the thread. Useless piece of paper.

10th amendment is not Bill of Rights. BoR applies to all Americans regardless of State and is not a State matter.
We talked about this last week. States actually Do Not have the authority to act upon the BoR.

[nobody's_hero]

10th amendment is not Bill of Rights. BoR applies to all Americans regardless of State and is not a State matter.
We talked about this last week. States actually Do Not have the authority to act upon the BoR.

My word, I hope you didn't pay for lessons on the Bill of Rights. I'd get my money back if you did. I think it sounds more ridiculous than it did last week, TBH.

[Snowball]

Again you completely ignore the 10th Amendment, but . . . you aren't alone. You're joined by over 2 centuries of people who completely ignored it.

Or maybe the Constitution was supposed to jump out of its glass display case and elbow-drop the first guy who tried to ignore it, keeping with the logic of the thread. Useless piece of paper.

What makes you think the states are allowed to individually interpret the Bill of Rights? They are not.

[TheTexan]

What makes you think the states are allowed to individually interpret the Bill of Rights? They are not.

The states are allowed to do whatever they want. If the other states aren't happy about it, they retain the right to kick the non-conforming state out of the union.

[Snowball]

The states are allowed to do whatever they want. If the other states aren't happy about it, they retain the right to kick the non-conforming state out of the union.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

so, no. Now, if a state wants to fight over it, like, physically restraining Federal officers seeking to impose the law, then, we're on another subject.

[acptulsa]

Private monies are fine and of your choice as long as they don't seek to counterdict or harm the crown's money which cannot be forbidden...

Why?

[TheTexan]

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

so, no. Now, if a state wants to fight over it, like, physically restraining Federal officers seeking to impose the law, then, we're on another subject.

Section 2 only applies to states that are in the union.

If a state leaves the union, section 2 no longer applies.

So, as I said, a state can do what they want. If other states want to issue an ultimatum, and say, "comply with our interpretation or we'll kick you out of the union", that remains their prerogative.

Similarly, telling the other states to pound sound, and leaving the union entirely, remains the prerogative of the individual states.

[nobody's_hero]

What makes you think the states are allowed to individually interpret the Bill of Rights? They are not.

What makes you think I'm even saying that?

Maybe the confusion is coming from you seeing something about abortion in the Bill of Rights that I'm just not seeing. You must be reading from a different version of the BoR because apparently yours doesn't include the 10th Amendment.

Take slavery, for example. Kind of a critical issue to the topic of freedom, wouldn't you say? Yet, they did actually bother to amend the Constitution to abolish it (messy details aside). They didn't just strain to interpret something out of the existing Bill of Rights to justify making it illegal. Why do you suppose they didn't just pass a law to make it illegal? Maybe because 10 years or so later the other side gets a simple majority and passes a law that makes it legal again. Then the other side comes back and says "no it's illegal! Legal. Illegal! Legal!"

If you think banning abortion is critical enough to require an amendment to the Constitution, then campaign to have one passed. (i'll even sign the petition myself, although I have little expectation that it would pass). If that seems insurmountable, be GLAD that you can at least find agreeable company to make it illegal at the state level. And you know which amendment expressly reserves that right?

I'll give you a hint: It's a whole number between 9 and 11.

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/202...ct-the-unborn/

[PAF]

10th amendment is not Bill of Rights. BoR applies to all Americans regardless of State and is not a State matter.
We talked about this last week. States actually Do Not have the authority to act upon the BoR.

Ah, no. It applies to all people. Nowhere does it say Americans, or citizen.

[donnay]

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

There is only one way to have Freedom and Liberty and NO man (or woman) are going to give it to you or allow you to have it unfettered.

[Invisible Man]

Private monies are fine and of your choice as long as they don't seek to counterdict or harm the crown's money which cannot be forbidden, but must not always be used.

Do you mean that you support laws that would ban me from offering goods or service for sale with the stipulation that I will not accept the crown's money in exchange?

[PAF]

There is only one way to have Freedom and Liberty and NO man (or woman) are going to give it to you or allow you to have it unfettered.

I still don't follow. I have already freed my mind, and promote those who have done the same. It was my understanding that you don't support this "crap". Is your "solution" to listen to AJ, "vote" for DeSantis, etc., and hope to get more to participate in "the system"?

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