Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

[pcosmar]

Well I am an anarchist, precisely because I recognize all states as aggressive, greedy, and vaccuum-filling by their very nature.
I fully recognize that in all cases I can point to where there was no functional state as we define it, another aggressor state came in and bayonetted their way into power.
I do not have an answer for this... but I also believe it's kind of on the state apologists to first explain why, if states are immutably agressive, violent, and greedy, why we should tolerate them at all, and why we continually have this argument, instead of the smart argument, which is how to stop them in the end game.

I have an answer. Human nature (corrupted by malevolent entities).
The same reason other forms of government both exist and fail.

Our Founders understood this,, and attempted a first time experiment. A Free people and Limited government.
an "anti-authoritarian" government in concept where the people rule themselves.

I believe it a good idea that could be improved. and the best proposed so far,,, historically.

[osan]

I am an autodiathist.

"Anarchy" carries far too much baggage.

[William Tell]

Well I am an anarchist, precisely because I recognize all states as aggressive, greedy, and vaccuum-filling by their very nature.
I fully recognize that in all cases I can point to where there was no functional state as we define it, another aggressor state came in and bayonetted their way into power.
I do not have an answer for this... but I also believe it's kind of on the state apologists to first explain why, if states are immutably agressive, violent, and greedy, why we should tolerate them at all, and why we continually have this argument, instead of the smart argument, which is how to stop them in the end game.

The way I see it it's like if you live in a very small town outside a large city. Say 200 people. You see what's wrong with government in general, so you could try to convince the voters to abolish the town government on principle. Nothing wrong with that, until you get rid of the town charter and Dallas, or Chicago, or wherever you are at annexes you and makes you part of a worse system. I don't apologize for government, it frustrates me as much as anyone. Just seems to me no matter how bad the odds are we have a better chance of halfway cleaning up our own house in America than we do of convincing the whole world to abandon aggression.

Our problem is not just government, it is abuse of any kind of power which is human nature. Churches, governments, tribes, businesses, evil pops up everywhere.

[Superfluous Man]

Just seems to me no matter how bad the odds are we have a better chance of halfway cleaning up our own house in America than we do of convincing the whole world to abandon aggression.

I don't hold out any hope of ever seeing the world abandon aggression. But I'll still abandon it anyway, because that's the right thing to do.

[Vieux Canard]

I'm a Bokononist

[fisharmor]

The way I see it it's like if you live in a very small town outside a large city. Say 200 people. You see what's wrong with government in general, so you could try to convince the voters to abolish the town government on principle. Nothing wrong with that, until you get rid of the town charter and Dallas, or Chicago, or wherever you are at annexes you and makes you part of a worse system. I don't apologize for government, it frustrates me as much as anyone. Just seems to me no matter how bad the odds are we have a better chance of halfway cleaning up our own house in America than we do of convincing the whole world to abandon aggression.

Our problem is not just government, it is abuse of any kind of power which is human nature. Churches, governments, tribes, businesses, evil pops up everywhere.

I do not intend to convince the whole world to give up on aggression.

You're not apologizing for government, you're just rejecting the idea that market forces can provide goods or services that are popular.
Or you're claiming that territorial defense isn't popular.
In either case, you're assuming that it won't be possible without a state. You might be saying that states serve some sort of scarecrow role in addition to being the only valid form of defense.

This conversation always hovers around faith, or lack of faith, in markets. If there is no market for territorial defense then people have no desire for it, and it's useless to force it upon them. If there is a market for territorial defense and you believe that it can be catered to in a non-monopolistic fashion, then we can move on to the discussion of how to convince a critical mass of other people that this is the case.

Otherwise, like I wrote above, we will spin our wheels on that point.

[Tywysog Cymru]

There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

They also have the idea that in the case of America becoming anarchist, an invading foreign power would try to occupy the entire US. It's quite naive.

You assume an attack.

I do not.

Maybe Mexico wouldn't attack. But they would have many incentives to attack:

-Control of resources (plenty of oil in Texas)
-Much of the US was formerly Mexican territory
-There wouldn't be any organized force to resist invasion
-They wouldn't face any of the consequences of invading a sovereign nation

[pcosmar]

-There wouldn't be any organized force to resist invasion
-They wouldn't face any of the consequences of invading a sovereign nation

Those are both an assumption.

and a good deterrents to an attack plan,

There may well be a local force to contend with and consequences for invasion.
(:see Afghanistan, )

[Ender]

I have an answer. Human nature (corrupted by malevolent entities).
The same reason other forms of government both exist and fail.

Our Founders understood this,, and attempted a first time experiment. A Free people and Limited government.
an "anti-authoritarian" government in concept where the people rule themselves.

I believe it a good idea that could be improved. and the best proposed so far,,, historically.

What the Founders "attempted" isn't on the choice list.

The Articles of Confederation was to insure small government with locals directing their own laws. The central gov was to be pretty much powerless, except for defense & international trade.

The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coupe for a large central gov controlled by elites. It has worked beautifully.

The PROBLEM is that Americans have been raised in public schools to be servants and worshippers of the coupe, instead of actually learning about, and living, real freedom and how it can operate in a community.

[Weston White]

Ideology is a spectrum, one may simultaneously be both or neither or a combination of other ideologies. So says Rainbow Snatch, thus, be it so.

[ATruepatriot]

There seems to be this mindset among some in the liberty movement that the U.S Government is the only potential aggressor and that other governments won't fill the vacuum and get greedy.

Finally... Some true critical thinking skills about real world cause and effect. I dropped in to add to your logical and rational reality. It is absolutely a factor not being considered. And the truth is it has already happened. The reality is we have already been invaded and occupied and incarcerated within our own borders as a prison nation by external entities. We are already ruled by a one world governing counsel of corporations. The invasion was successful and it is now our new reality.

So all the "what ifs" or "I prefer" ideology has already now been negated in full.

[Matt Collins]

Minarchist. Although to be honest if the government followed the Constitution I would probably be 98% happy with just that.

[ATruepatriot]

How soon we forget...

[Snowball]

Minarchist. Although to be honest if the government followed the Constitution I would probably be 98% happy with just that.

Matt. We DID follow the Constitution. That's WHY we are here.

[Liberty_Tree]

How soon we forget...

[Liberty_Tree]

Anarchist/Voluntaryist

[acptulsa]

Matt. We DID follow the Constitution. That's WHY we are here.

Just the kind of oversimplification that does more to hinder communication than help it.

Yes, it was a step down the road simply because the AoC was better. That said, while we adhered to it letter and spirit we were well off. And we did, never perfectly, but to a degree young people today cannot see and have trouble understanding.

[Invisible Man]

Finally... Some true critical thinking skills about real world cause and effect. I dropped in to add to your logical and rational reality. It is absolutely a factor not being considered. And the truth is it has already happened. The reality is we have already been invaded and occupied and incarcerated within our own borders as a prison nation by external entities. We are already ruled by a one world governing counsel of corporations. The invasion was successful and it is now our new reality.

So all the "what ifs" or "I prefer" ideology has already now been negated in full.

Going along with your way of framing history, just for the sake of argument, under what system did this successful occupation take place?

[acptulsa]

Going along with your way of framing history, just for the sake of argument, under what system did this successful occupation take place?

The System of Expedient Hypocrisy.

Hold your nose and vote because the worst Republican isn't as bad as the best Democrat. Vote blue no matter who. Sometimes principle has to be sacrificed to slow the spread. You know the clichés.

Expedient Hypocrisy.

There are people on this very forum ready to trash what's left of the Constitution just to keep them from reinstalling Biden one more time before he dies. I'm just sure our great-grandchildren will be grateful. Assuming we have any, of course, considering impotence is growing at Warp Speed.

[Philhelm]

I'd like to say Constitutionalist, but I'm also trying to survive. I fear that we are getting to the point, if not already there, wherein Constitutional remedies may not be an option.

[acptulsa]

I'd like to say Constitutionalist, but I'm also trying to survive. I fear that we are getting to the point, if not already there, wherein Constitutional remedies may not be an option.

Yes, exactly. They made that document as irrelevant as they could in preparation for this. It's not doing us any good any more, might as well trash it.

And while we're bidding it a fond, tearful adieu, we're not hardly paying enough attention to what they intend to replace it with.

Well, it won't be Biden who tells us. It'll be Trump. Why? Because we won't let Biden tell us. But after four years of insanity, starvation and death, a very great many people will let Trump tell us.

It's a very possible potential danger that we had damned well better be alert to.

[Snowball]

Just the kind of oversimplification that does more to hinder communication than help it.

Yes, it was a step down the road simply because the AoC was better. That said, while we adhered to it letter and spirit we were well off. And we did, never perfectly, but to a degree young people today cannot see and have trouble understanding.

Are you suggesting that after a particular time, our elected officials and the courts stopped adhering to the Constitution?
That is debatable. They would say they did not. So, either the Constitution is deficient or malleable enough to allow it, regardless, just like Spooner said.

[acptulsa]

Are you suggesting that after a particular time, our elected officials and the courts stopped adhering to the Constitution?
That is debatable. They would say they did not. So, either the Constitution is deficient or malleable enough to allow it, regardless, just like Spooner said.

"The Constitution is just a piece of paper." When Dubya said that, everyone assumed he was merely expressing his disdain for the principles it was built on. But that's not it, in my opinion. Dubya was saying, a piece of paper doesn't have teeth. And while people do have teeth, they will only use them to protect a piece of paper if they understand how it makes their lives better.

The hundred dollar bill in your wallet is just a piece of paper. It can't and won't protect itself from the mugger in your face. You have to do that.

The deficiency lies not in the principles on which this republic was founded, but in us. We are suffering these injustices not because the Constitution is malleable, but because too many of us are. And yes, I do personally remember a time when this wasn't as true as it is now.

[Matt Collins]

Matt. We DID follow the Constitution. That's WHY we are here.

No, the government did not follow it. 98% of what the federal government does is contrary to the Constitution

[nobody's_hero]

The deficiency lies not in the principles on which this republic was founded, but in us. We are suffering these injustices not because the Constitution is malleable, but because too many of us are. And yes, I do personally remember a time when this wasn't as true as it is now.

Well said.

I was in Europe when the constitution was planned & established, and never saw it till after it was established. on receiving it I wrote strongly to mr Madison urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the substitution of militia for a standing army, and an express reservation to the states of all rights not specifically granted to the union. he accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these Amendments which were agreed to & ratified by the states as they now stand. this is all the hand I had in what related to the Constitution. our predecessors made it doubtful how far even these were of any value. for the very law which endangered your personal safety, as well as that which restrained the freedom of the press, were gross violations of them. however it is still certain that tho’ written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish 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.- From Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 19 June 1802

Those words ring quite true to me. Ron Paul standing on that stage in 2008, harping on a literal, strict interpretation of the Constitution was one such 'rally and recall' moment.

[Snowball]

No, the government did not follow it. 98% of what the federal government does is contrary to the Constitution

Then why does the Constitution provide for its own destruction?

[acptulsa]

Then why does the Constitution provide for its own destruction?

Stop being cryptic. Are you referring to the amendment process? Because without that it would have fallen much sooner. I doubt it would have lasted long enough for the civil war to destroy it.

[Snowball]

Stop being cryptic. Are you referring to the amendment process? Because without that it would have fallen much sooner. I doubt it would have lasted long enough for the civil war to destroy it.

No, I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to whatever Matt or anyone else perceives to be illegal per the Constitution that is happening.
If the Constitution allows our representatives, including Potus and their appointments, like Scotus to VIOLATE the Constitution then it is INSUFFICIENT.
At the very least, more like negligible, naive, or outright disingenuous,or ill-conceived, or fraudulent..... and few will admit it.

[acptulsa]

Well, sorry, dude, the founders didn't have a killbot to write it on. All they had was harmless parchment.

[Snowball]

Well, sorry, dude, the founders didn't have a killbot to write it on. All they had was harmless parchment.

They also forced detractors to sign - under duress of sorts.

Rhode Island is a prime example of that.

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/...-constitution/