# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government)

## Origanalist

*The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by Bill Buppert*



Publishers Note: I thought it more appropriate to conduct my annual savaging of the Constitution on the day after in concert with the Scottish bid for independence. May they look elsewhere for a document to wreath around a successful bid if they win.

Constitution Day is the annual homage to one of the most devilishly clever instruments to make a slave people think they are free. The political coup occurred a mere three years after the divorce proceedings from the United Kingdom in 1783 where 13 separate nations sat across from the Kings legation in Paris. Ironic the day following is a referendum for the Scottish to no longer be English poodles and break away from the same clods in London. Such a referendum would never be tolerated in the land of the free and home of the brave under current Constitutional constraints since the question of individual sovereignty at the individual and state level was solved by Lincolns clarification on Constitutional totalitarianism in 1865 and further cemented in the years to follow.

A quick thought experiment is in order. If the Second Amendment has any meaning, how does one explain the Constitutional imprimatur and stamp of approval on the 1934 NFA, 1939 US v. Miller, 1968 GCA, 1986 FOPA, 1989 Bush prohibition on the importation of cosmetically offensive weapons and the very existence of the BATFE? All government approved and enforced; move along citizen, no infringement here.

The answer is elegantly simple: limited government is impossible and the rulers do as they please using the document that destroyed the states individual presumptions and nationalized the edict and issue of executive regulation to the atomistic level. The Federalist project was a means to effectively manage tax cattle and when possible invade the rest of the planet with the contagion the document created to put every human being under its power on a permanent plantation.

One additional observation: is it not instructive that in every case where an individual seeks redress against government abuse, they never use the body of the Constitution but the anemic Bill of Rights the Federalists objected to? Read Hamiltons weak arguments against the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84 for a clue where these scoundrels were headed.

Constitution Day is not a day of celebration but a day of mourning for what could have been. BB



By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.

~ James Madison

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain  that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

~ Lysander Spooner

Today, 17 September 2014, is Constitution Day. There will be paeans, abundant commentary and church-like observances of the glories of this document in making us the most blessed nation on planet earth. This essay suggests a contrarian thesis. The Constitution is an enabling document for big government. Much like the Wizard of Oz, the man behind the curtain is a fraud. In this case, for all the sanctimonious hand-wringing and the obsequious idolatry of the parchment, it sealed the fate of our liberties and freedoms and has operated for more than 200 years as a cover for massive expansion of the tools and infrastructure of statist expansion and oppression. Among the many intellectual travels I have undertaken, this is one of the most heart-breaking I have ventured on. I want to acknowledge the compass-bearers who sent me on this journey: Kenneth W. Royce (aka Boston T. Party) and his seminal book, The Hologram of Liberty and Kevin Gutzmans Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. For most of the political spectrum in America, the document represents their interpretation of how to make this mortal coil paradise. Even in libertarian circles, it is taken as an article of faith the Constitution is a brilliant mechanism to enlarge liberty and keep government at bay. That is a lie.

The document was drafted in the summer of 1787 behind closed doors in tremendous secrecy because if word leaked out of the actual contents and intent, the revolution that had just concluded would have been set ablaze again. They were in a race against time and did everything in their power to ensure that the adoption took place as quickly as possible to avoid reflection and contemplation in the public square that would kill the proposal once the consequences of its agenda became apparent. They were insisting that the states ratify first and then propose amendments later. It was a political coup détat. It was nothing less than an oligarchical coup to ensure that the moneyed interests, banksters and aristocrats could cement their positions and mimic the United Kingdom from which they had been recently divorced.


The original charter of the drafters was to pen improvements to the existing Articles of Confederation. Instead, they chose to hijack the process and create a document which enslaved the nation. Federalist in the old parlance meant states rights and subsidiarity but the three authors of the fabled Federalist Papers supported everything but that. Their intent and commitment was to create a National government with the ability to make war on its constituent parts if these states failed to submit themselves to the central government.

As Austrian economists have discovered, bigger is not necessarily better. The brilliant and oft-dismissed Articles of Confederation (AoC) and Perpetual Union are a testament to voluntarism and cooperation through persuasion that the Constitution disposed of with its adoption. Penned in 1776 and ratified in 1781, the spirit and context of the Articles live on in the Swiss canton system and are everywhere evident in the marketplace where confederationist sentiments are practiced daily. The confederations design divines its mechanism from what an unfettered market does every day: voluntary cooperation, spontaneous information signals and the parts always being smarter than the sum A. confederation according to the Websters 1828 dictionary is:

The act of confederating; a league; a compact for mutual support; alliance; particularly of princes, nations or states.
I would advise the readership to use the 1828 Websters dictionary to accompany any primary source research you may undertake to understand American (& British) letters in the eighteenth century. It is the source for the contemporary lexicon. It is even available online now.

Note that the precept of individual taxation was an end-run against state sovereignty from the very beginning. If the Congress does not wish to violate state sovereignty, then they will simply prey on the individuals in the states. It should be obvious that the AoC was not a recipe for government employees from top to bottom to use the office to enrich themselves so a scheme was afoot to precipitate and manufacture dissent over the present configuration of the central government apparatus which for all intents and purposes barely existed. The AoC was intolerable to a narrow panoply of interests and the Federalist Papers appeared between October 1787 and August 1788 to plead the case for a newer form of Republic authored by three individuals: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. The British had sued for peace in 1783 and the AoC were still in effect until 1790. Time was ticking to erect the new government apparatus that would strengthen the central government to eventually mimic the very tyranny which caused British North America to put the English Crown in the hazard. The Anti-Federalists rose up in response and provided what I consider one of the most splendid and eloquent defenses of small government penned in our history.

When the Constitutional Convention convened on 1787, 55 delegates came but 14 later quit as the Convention eventually abused its mandate and scrapped the AoC instead of revising it. The notes and proceedings of the cloistered meeting were to be secret as long as 53 years later when Madisons edited notes were published in 1840.

The Anti-Federalist Brutus avers in Essay I in October 1787:

But what is meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroulable powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade, raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way.

The conflict was brewing between the Jeffersonians among the individualists and the Hamiltonian collectivists. The rhetorical lines were drawn and the fate of the nation eventually slid into the camp of the Nationalists.

George Washington wrote to John Jay on 1 August 1786:

Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assume their imperial dignity and command obedience. Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility, where thirteen sovereign, independent[,] disunited States are in the habit of discussing & refusing compliance with them at their option. Requisitions are actually little better than a jest and a bye word through out the Land. If you tell the Legislatures they have violated the treaty of peace and invaded the prerogatives of the confederacy they will laugh in your face. What then is to be done? Things cannot go on in the same train forever. It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people being disgusted with the circumstances will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever. We are apt to run from one extreme into another. To anticipate & prevent disasterous contingencies would be the part of wisdom & patriotism.

It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high. Washingtons behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

continued at...http://zerogov.com/?p=3633

----------


## fr33

I totally missed that holiday. It was yesterday/on the verge of being 2 days ago. It's not really worth celebrating. It's been a failure to protect human rights. But I suppose it might have protected a few rights for a while. The whole thing is winding down.

----------


## Czolgosz

Limited government *is* possible.   But, it requires diligently violent Men to preserve it.

----------


## Origanalist

> Limited government *is* possible.   But, it requires diligently violent Men to preserve it.


What we have are psychotically violent men opposed to it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Limited government *is* possible.   But, it requires diligently violent Men to preserve it.


LOL    It's also possible that pigs can sprout wings and fly...

----------


## Ronin Truth

*Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd President (1801-1809)*

----------


## DamianTV

The Constitution did not fail because of flaws inherit to every document.  It failed from the lack of conviction of our leaders to uphold the principles and the spirit that the Constitution represents.  Living Documents only live because the people themselves are what breathe life into these documents.  It was no different than the Magna Carta.  We could just as easily point a finger at that document as having failed as well, but it did not fail for lack of wordsmithing, but from the lack of conviction.  Without that precious conviction, all documents can be nothing more than words on paper or pixles on a screen.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> LOL    It's also possible that pigs can sprout wings and fly...


True, with the pansified men walking around today.  Indeed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

You know, it's these types of threads that cause a great many people, who would have worked right alongside of us, to want to get as far away from us as they can.  

Ron Paul stressed for many years the importance of our government adhering to the Constitution.  No, it's not perfect, but it's the best any country has ever had.  So, instead of touting the principles that this country once held dear, some here take the opportunity on Constitution Day, to ignorantly claim that a piece of paper could do anything at all without an educated and vigilant population insisting that it be followed.  Just wonderful, guys.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Constitution did not fail because of flaws inherit to every document. It failed from the lack of conviction of our leaders to uphold the principles and the spirit that the Constitution represents. Living Documents only live because the people themselves are what breathe life into these documents. It was no different than the Magna Carta. We could just as easily point a finger at that document as having failed as well, but it did not fail for lack of wordsmithing, but from the lack of conviction. Without that precious conviction, all documents can be nothing more than words on paper or pixles on a screen.


  I don't really think that it failed.  I think it functions EXACTLY as the Federalists designed it, and as the prescient Anti-federalists predicted it would.  

It could also be argued, I believe, that it didn't fail, it was murdered.

----------


## 56ktarget

You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people are more concerned about the right to own a gun than the economy/foreign policy/etc.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people are more concerned about the right to own a gun than the economy/foreign policy/etc.


Or when they elect Obama, W, and Bubba to each be POTUS twice.

----------


## idiom

New Zealand, which is generally rated higher than the US in personal and economic freedoms, has no constitution to speak of.

It's nearly a pure democracy with no checks or balances except an informed and active populace.

----------


## osan

> What we have are psychotically violent men opposed to it.


Correct, but let us look to root causes.  The ultimate shame lies at OUR feet and not those of the political figures whose scurrilous acts we have tolerated since the very beginning of the Republic.  Had we set the precedent ca. 1790 wherein the least violation by an official or other instrument of the so-called "state" been met with a bullet to the head or a length of good stiff rope, I daresay we would not be in the pickle in which we now find ourselves.  We might be in other pickles, mind you, but not this one.

The sorts of people who seek political office are generally of a lower character than even the average man.  There are exceptions like Ron Paul, but these are few and far between.  Like snakes, such people are what they are.  Part of that which defines "viper" is "bite".  One cannot blame the viper for biting, but one can either avoid it or kill it in the event it attacks.  The same with politicians.  We can avoid dirtying our hands with them and, in the event such persons threaten us, we can kill them.  Just as I am authorized by my inherent right to life to take the life from anyone threatening to do me grave harm, so are we all entitled by the same right to destroy the material reality of any governmental agent, elected, appointed, or hired, when they threaten the sanctity of our rights.  We almost universally demur and have done so since the beginning.

Therefore, the shame and guilt lies squarely with us and nobody else. 

Think of _that_ the next time you find yourself looking in the mirror.

----------


## osan

> The Constitution did not fail because of flaws inherit to every document.


Coprrect in the strict sense.  Less so in the sense that the Constitution is not well written.  It is _elegantly_ written and it appears that many people confuse pretty elegance with clarity, completeness, and correctness - in other words, with _efficiency_.




> It failed from the lack of conviction of our leaders to uphold the principles and the spirit that the Constitution represents.


I am afraid, my pal, this is not quite correct, it being partially so at best.  The failure issued from the governed when they abdicated their responsibilities to themselves and their fellows, thereby effectively waiving the rights of all and conceding absolute authority to those occupying the seats of power.




> *Living Documents* only live because the people themselves are what breathe life into these documents.


May I suggest that this was a poor choice of terms for a sentiment that I believe may be otherwise agreeable?




> It was no different than the Magna Carta.  We could just as easily point a finger at that document as having failed as well, but it did not fail for lack of wordsmithing, but from the lack of conviction.  Without that precious conviction, all documents can be nothing more than words on paper or pixles on a screen.


The question of conviction notwithstanding, it is the failure to act correctly that ultimately dooms us and that failure almost always hinges on our failure to _think_ correctly.

----------


## idiom

> The sorts of people who seek political office are generally of a lower character than even the average man.  There are exceptions like Ron Paul, but these are few and far between.


Bollocks. The quality of the average man has gone down. Otherwise there would be rioting in the streets. Everyone *wants* what they are getting because they think they can get more out of the scam than everyone else is losing.

----------


## otherone

> You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people are more concerned about the right to own a gun than the *economy/foreign policy/etc.*


You know your government is effective when you are distracted by issues out of your control.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The Constitution did not fail because of flaws inherit to every document.  It failed from the lack of conviction of our leaders to uphold the principles and the spirit that the Constitution represents.  Living Documents only live because the people themselves are what breathe life into these documents.  It was no different than the Magna Carta.  We could just as easily point a finger at that document as having failed as well, but it did not fail for lack of wordsmithing, but from the lack of conviction.  Without that precious conviction, all documents can be nothing more than words on paper or pixles on a screen.


Sorry, can't rep you again.  But this is correct.

There are simply no words possible to ensure the liberty of men forever.  Words cannot do that.  It doesn't matter what configuration of words or syllables, there will be those that choose to twist them, derive new meaning from them, or simply ignore them.  If you get enough of those people, you can make the whole document meaningless.  No matter _what_ the document said.  The Constitution is about the document of sentiments that has ever been ratified, but it is not the document that is at fault.  It is human nature.  Humans will not be constrained by words - for better or worse.

For example...  There are many written words of "law" that I choose to ignore every day.  Just because someone wrote them down, doesn't mean I'm going to follow them.  Why should I expect our politicians to be any different?  The only difference is that _their_ words infringe upon my liberty to do as I please, and the Constitution's words infringe upon their desire to infringe upon my liberty.  If they have a desire to do something opposed to those words, they will find a way.  It is up to the people to be ever vigilant.  Unfortunately, most of our citizenry have been educated by the same government that wishes to rule them.

So instead of relying on the words, I'll rely on my gun and live free until the day I die.

----------


## Spikender

> You know, it's these types of threads that cause a great many people, who would have worked right alongside of us, to want to get as far away from us as they can.  
> 
> Ron Paul stressed for many years the importance of our government adhering to the Constitution.  No, it's not perfect, but it's the best any country has ever had.  So, instead of touting the principles that this country once held dear, some here take the opportunity on Constitution Day, to ignorantly claim that a piece of paper could do anything at all without an educated and vigilant population insisting that it be followed.  Just wonderful, guys.


There's nothing wrong with sharing dissenting thoughts about the Constitution.

It is just a piece of paper in the end and it's clear that, whether it is a pillar of liberty or not, that we the people have failed to keep the Government in check, Constitution or no Constitution.

I find pieces like this interesting because it challenges what I believe and makes me honestly take my positions and what I support and reexamine them.

It makes me want to study the Constitution again, which I probably should to refresh my memory. I should probably also study the Bible again because it's been a while since I've glanced at that as well.

If people are turned away because we want to discuss the Constitution in a way that isn't always idolatry and praise, then they aren't being intellectually honest with themselves.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Constitution did not fail because of flaws inherit to every document. It failed from the lack of conviction of our leaders to uphold the principles and the spirit that the Constitution represents. Living Documents only live because the people themselves are what breathe life into these documents. It was no different than the Magna Carta. We could just as easily point a finger at that document as having failed as well, but it did not fail for lack of wordsmithing, but from the lack of conviction. Without that precious conviction, all documents can be nothing more than words on paper or pixles on a screen.



*"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." -- Albert Jay Nock
*

----------


## Origanalist

> Correct, but let us look to root causes.  The ultimate shame lies at OUR feet and not those of the political figures whose scurrilous acts we have tolerated since the very beginning of the Republic.  Had we set the precedent ca. 1790 wherein the least violation by an official or other instrument of the so-called "state" been met with a bullet to the head or a length of good stiff rope, I daresay we would not be in the pickle in which we now find ourselves.  We might be in other pickles, mind you, but not this one.
> 
> The sorts of people who seek political office are generally of a lower character than even the average man.  There are exceptions like Ron Paul, but these are few and far between.  Like snakes, such people are what they are.  Part of that which defines "viper" is "bite".  One cannot blame the viper for biting, but one can either avoid it or kill it in the event it attacks.  The same with politicians.  We can avoid dirtying our hands with them and, in the event such persons threaten us, we can kill them.  Just as I am authorized by my inherent right to life to take the life from anyone threatening to do me grave harm, so are we all entitled by the same right to destroy the material reality of any governmental agent, elected, appointed, or hired, when they threaten the sanctity of our rights.  We almost universally demur and have done so since the beginning.
> 
> Therefore, the shame and guilt lies squarely with us and nobody else. 
> 
> Think of _that_ the next time you find yourself looking in the mirror.


Aye, what you say is true. It is also true that almost right from the start there were those that did try to repulse those that infringed on them and were ruthlessly dealt with. (by the same people crying liberty and freedom a few years earlier)

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

A right is something you'd die for, before letting it be taken away. In that regard no living man can have his rights removed.  Write it in the constitution, the new bible, the new world peace pact, whatever you want to call it, that is what it always breaks down to, and the knock over effect is as long as that threat is alive rights are not encroached upon by the powers that be, but when the threat is not present, even if written down and acknowledged by the powers that be, they do not exist and will not be respected. 

IMO.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Ron Paul has emphasized following the Constitution because it is a largely libertarian document that tries to contain government power through many mechanisms, and also because it is politically useful in providing mainstream cover for communicating liberty principles to a public who might otherwise reject it. It made it fundamentally easier for him to quickly explain his many no votes, by just stressing the legislation ran contrary to the expressed original intent of the Constitution, versus him going over the liberty problems with each bill.

If there had been no federal Constitution, and the founders had simply amended the Articles of Confederation, the centralizers would have found a way to simply gut that document as well. This is also important for understanding the "failure" of government documents---i.e., statists simply learn how to artfully deviate from the original intent, especially as time passes and more people forget the original meaning. The easiest way has been to procedurally neglect it (e.g., replace a stated constitutional process with a sub-constitutional statutory one, then set aside the former as "archaic"). Instead of violating the "declaration of war" provision outright, to cite one case, statists simply create a "War Powers Authorization" statute, reputedly to address a "special situation" where the President needed leeway to deploy the military in a hurry, then clearly use it thereafter to justify any military action without Congressional approval. 

This tactic is aided by the inconsistency of many people in upholding the primacy of Constitutional intent, as seen in the debate over Obarry's citizenship and photoshopped birth certificate. Per the Constitution/original intent, he is not a natural born citizen (as one parent was not American, and he grew up as a Indonesian citizen as per his school and adult records there), thus is not qualified to be President. But because of the statutory citizenship laws permit him to be construed as legitimately American, the original Constitutional requirements are set aside---even by many Paul supporters. So if even we set aside the Constitutional meaning when it comes to natural born citizenship, how can we then complain when the pro-war people set it aside when it comes to launching undeclared wars? 

This is how the Constitution 'failed,' by people selectively supporting it, but settling for statutory, case law or precedents that utterly undo it, whenever upholding original intent is felt to be too politically uncomfortable.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> “Though 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 and recall the people" 
> 
> ― Thomas Jeffeson 1802


Being mad at the constitution for not restraining government is about like being mad at a history book whenever people repeat history. There is a large degree of responsibility on the part of people. It's right there on the paper. Didn't they read it? If the answer is 'no,' it's hardly the paper's fault. 

Vigilance is required on the part of human beings to retain freedom. Inanimate objects will neither preserve nor destroy it, but as Jefferson said, it's nice to have something in writing to remind folks.

----------


## FloralScent

> You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people are more concerned about the right to own a gun than the economy/foreign policy/etc.


The right to own a gun is the only reason you still have the right to flap your dick-sucker.  On second thought YOU (a communist) would still have the right, all opposed would be imprisoned for speaking their minds, kind of like Europe is today.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Being mad at the constitution for not restraining government is about like being mad at a history book whenever people repeat history. There is a large degree of responsibility on the part of people. It's right there on the paper. Didn't they read it? If the answer is 'no,' it's hardly the paper's fault. 
> 
> Vigilance is required on the part of human beings to retain freedom. Inanimate objects will neither preserve nor destroy it, but as Jefferson said, it's nice to have something in writing to remind folks.


Well in all fairness, it WAS written in secret, and behind closed doors. Article VII provides for a very sneaky ratification process. It was an illegal unauthorized extension of their official assignment. It was read by MAYBE 10,000 folks before being ratified, out of a total population of several millions. It CONstituted (pun intended) a coup by the Federalists against the lawful Articles of Confederation. 

And even then, with all that it still just barely squeaked by in a rigged process. 

Got a real winner there, folks.  A real testament to historic revisionism, PR, propaganda and a government schooling system.

"Official" history is most often and usually written by the winners.

*Truth is treason in the empire of lies. -- Ron Paul*

----------


## lysander6

Gentlemen,

Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.

It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.

Bill Buppert

----------


## osan

> You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people are more concerned about the right to own a gun than the economy/foreign policy/etc.


You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people make statements such as that, above, thereby trumpeting to the world the grand degree to which government has perfected its assault upon young intellects, eventually reducing them in such manner as is here illustrated.

----------


## Deborah K

> The Constitution did not fail because of flaws inherit to every document.  It failed from the lack of conviction of our leaders to uphold the principles and the spirit that the Constitution represents.  Living Documents only live because the people themselves are what breathe life into these documents.  It was no different than the Magna Carta.  We could just as easily point a finger at that document as having failed as well, but it did not fail for lack of wordsmithing, but from the lack of conviction.  Without that precious conviction, all documents can be nothing more than words on paper or pixles on a screen.


Very eloquently put, as usual, and I completely agree.  +rep

----------


## osan

> Being mad at the constitution for not restraining government is about like being mad at a history book whenever people repeat history.


On the money.  Our Constitution is weak - it could be a LOT better, but as I have often repeated here, many of the apparent intentions of the document are noble and correct.  Given that, the document's weaknesses serve only to underscore OUR weaknesses as individuals in terms of our knowledge (or rather ignorance) and attitudes.  The Constitution has not failed.  We have.




> Vigilance is required on the part of human beings to retain freedom. Inanimate objects will neither preserve nor destroy it, but as Jefferson said, it's nice to have something in writing to remind folks.


Agreed.  Nothing wrong with a constitution.  The problem is that people tend to be lazy, especially along certain lines and often under specific conditions.  They will pawn their responsibilities off on others any time the can get away with it.  And here we are.

----------


## Deborah K

> There's nothing wrong with sharing dissenting thoughts about the Constitution.
> 
> It is just a piece of paper in the end and it's clear that, whether it is a pillar of liberty or not, that we the people have failed to keep the Government in check, Constitution or no Constitution.
> 
> I find pieces like this interesting because it challenges what I believe and makes me honestly take my positions and what I support and reexamine them.
> 
> It makes me want to study the Constitution again, which I probably should to refresh my memory. I should probably also study the Bible again because it's been a while since I've glanced at that as well.
> 
> If people are turned away because we want to discuss the Constitution in a way that isn't always idolatry and praise, then they aren't being intellectually honest with themselves.


Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are?  I think so.  And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it.  Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities.  The Quakers are sort of an example.  They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Correct, but let us look to root causes.  *The ultimate shame lies at OUR feet and not those of the political figures whose scurrilous acts we have tolerated since the very beginning of the Republic.  Had we set the precedent ca. 1790 wherein the least violation by an official or other instrument of the so-called "state" been met with a bullet to the head or a length of good stiff rope, I daresay we would not be in the pickle in which we now find ourselves.  We might be in other pickles, mind you, but not this one.*
> 
> The sorts of people who seek political office are generally of a lower character than even the average man.  There are exceptions like Ron Paul, but these are few and far between.  Like snakes, such people are what they are.  Part of that which defines "viper" is "bite".  One cannot blame the viper for biting, but one can either avoid it or kill it in the event it attacks.  The same with politicians.  We can avoid dirtying our hands with them and, in the event such persons threaten us, we can kill them.  Just as I am authorized by my inherent right to life to take the life from anyone threatening to do me grave harm, so are we all entitled by the same right to destroy the material reality of any governmental agent, elected, appointed, or hired, when they threaten the sanctity of our rights.  We almost universally demur and have done so since the beginning.
> 
> Therefore, the shame and guilt lies squarely with us and nobody else. 
> 
> Think of _that_ the next time you find yourself looking in the mirror.


The "our" here makes no sense (unless you have a mouse in your pocket?).  Otherwise a rather good point.  That's pretty damning of the "Founding Fathers", and the cult that has grown around them over the centuries, isn't it?  (That is, the historical people the Constitutionalists would have us look to as role models couldn't even operate properly in their own time and under the best possible circumstances)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Agreed.  Nothing wrong with a constitution.  The problem is that people tend to be lazy, especially along certain lines and often under specific conditions.  They will pawn their responsibilities off on others any time the can get away with it.  And here we are.


You seem to be appealing to the "social contract" theory.  Lysander Spooner thoroughly destroyed that in "No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority".  (Others have done good work on the subject since then, but Spooner's piece is the best I've read)

----------


## Deborah K

> The "our" here makes no sense (unless you have a mouse in your pocket?).  Otherwise a rather good point.  That's pretty damning of the "Founding Fathers", and the cult that has grown around them over the centuries, isn't it?  (That is, the historical people the Constitutionalists would have us look to as role models couldn't even operate properly in their own time and under the best possible circumstances)


I would argue that the founding era was not "the best possible circumstances".  But I would agree that even the Founders couldn't live up to the high standards which were set in the Constitution.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well in all fairness, it WAS written in secret, and behind closed doors. Article VII provides for a very sneaky ratification process. It was an illegal unauthorized extension of their official assignment. It was read by MAYBE 10,000 folks before being ratified, out of a total population of several millions. It CONstituted (pun intended) a coup by the Federalists against the lawful Articles of Confederation. 
> 
> And even then, with all that it still just barely squeaked by in a rigged process. 
> 
> Got a real winner there, folks.  A real testament to historic revisionism, PR, propaganda and a government schooling system.
> 
> "Official" history is most often and usually written by the winners.
> 
> *“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” -- Ron Paul*





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


 Sorry I can't +rep you anymore for now.  You're doing great things in this thread.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I would argue that the founding era was not "the best possible circumstances".*  But I would agree that even the Founders couldn't live up to the high standards which were set in the Constitution.


One of the most literate societies in the world at the time full of people who understood both the words and historical context of civics, no significant history of corruption/usurpation, and a basically evenly armed people compared to the government isn't the best possible circumstance?    It couldn't have been better if there had been no prior experience as a guide at all!  C'mon, I may have been born in December, but it wasn't last December! :P

----------


## Spikender

> Gentlemen,
> 
> Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.
> 
> It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.
> 
> Bill Buppert


Thanks for writing that essay, I just reread it after waking up from a refreshing nap and I'd say it makes a good introduction into taking a more critical review of the documents of the Constitution.

As I said before, I really have to restudy the Constitution, which I should have a chance to do tonight. Going into the document with a more critical eye could be valuable for me... last time I came from a less discerning viewpoint.




> Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are?  I think so.  And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it.  Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities.  The Quakers are sort of an example.  They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.


Well first off I want to say that not everyone who is critical of the Constitution is an anarchist. I don't think you were implying that, because I don't usually consider myself an anarchist though I will say that sometimes anarchy does seem preferable to what we have now. In any case, that's one reason why along with taking another review of the Constitution, I'd like to review the Articles of Confederation as well. It sucks to admit, but I haven't really looked at them and it's something I should've done a long time ago. In school they hammered us over and over again telling us that the Articles made the Federal Government too "weak" and that they failed... and they never went into much more detail than that.

On your point about adhering to the Constitution... well I think that it goes without saying that our Government would be far smaller if we had stuck by it. It's crazy to think that, even if you are coming from a viewpoint where the Constitution is an enabler of bigger Government, that our current Government doesn't even follow it in over ninety percent of its decisions.

----------


## Deborah K

> One of the most literate societies in the world at the time full of people who understood both the words and historical context of civics, no significant history of corruption/usurpation, and a basically evenly armed people compared to the government isn't the best possible circumstance?    It couldn't have been better if there had been no prior experience as a guide at all!  C'mon, I may have been born in December, but it wasn't last December! :P


They had a debt from the war with Britain to contend with, and France tried to suck them into their war.  And there were plenty of sympathizers for France at the time since it was common knowledge that without their help, we probably would have lost.  Those 'wonder years' of our infancy were indeed magical, but also filled with strife.

----------


## HVACTech

excellent conversation folks, 
what I have NOT seen yet is a clear elucidation about what our constitution is BASED on. 
I submit that it is based on Natural or Organic Law. this is a very important distinction in my purview. 
my understanding is that this concept matured in the age of enlightenment. 

without a firm understanding of the basis, a student cannot learn very well. 
the rule of law, is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy, this rule of law, can be based on anything. (hence PRC, USSR...) our rule of law is our constitution. 
it is based on Natural Law. 

if my view is correct. would this not explain why we are not making better progress? 
(besides Fluoride of course)....

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> They had a debt from the war with Britain to contend with, and France tried to suck them into their war.  And there were plenty of sympathizers for France at the time since it was common knowledge that without their help, we probably would have lost.  Those 'wonder years' of our infancy were indeed magical, but also filled with strife.


Strife is not an excuse for lawlessness and tyranny.  That's an old-fashioned imperialist game to keep the subjects busy and obedient.  If I were so inclined, I could make up ex post facto justifications for just about all government crimes based partly or entirely on "strife".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> excellent conversation folks, 
> what I have NOT seen yet is a clear elucidation about what our constitution is BASED on. 
> I submit that it is based on Natural or Organic Law. this is a very important distinction in my purview. 
> my understanding is that this concept matured in the age of enlightenment. 
> 
> without a firm understanding of the basis, a student cannot learn very well. 
> the rule of law, is what distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy, this rule of law, can be based on anything. (hence PRC, USSR...) our rule of law is our constitution. 
> it is based on Natural Law. 
> 
> ...


Nonsense.  Aside from the Bill Of Rights, it has almost nothing to do with Natural Law.  Despite its problems, the AoC was a far better legal expression of Natural Law. The Federalists, if you read them carefully and in context, were definitely not the heroes of Classical Liberalism and Enlightenment as we are often led to believe.

----------


## HVACTech

> Gentlemen,
> 
> Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.
> 
> It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.
> 
> Bill Buppert


no, it did not. they accepted it as a fact. (and also put something in place to eliminate it, if not) they had bigger fish to fry, slavery was on it's way out the door anyhow.

defend your other point, please.  

or are they one and the same..

----------


## HVACTech

> Nonsense.  Aside from the Bill Of Rights, it has almost nothing to do with Natural Law.  Despite its problems, the AoC was a far better legal expression of Natural Law. The Federalists, if you read them carefully and in context, were definitely not the heroes of Classical Liberalism and Enlightenment as we are often led to believe.


you have NO idea what you are talking about. you are like an A/C guy doing Refrigeration service work, yeah you got a clue, just enough to be dangerous.
so, wise guy, what was the original intent? was it based on something?...mebbe?

if I have done a poor job of defining  the meaning of "original intent" why don't you go me one better?

----------


## Deborah K

> *Strife is not an excuse for lawlessness and tyranny.*  That's an old-fashioned imperialist game to keep the subjects busy and obedient.  If I were so inclined, I could make up ex post facto justifications for just about all government crimes based partly or entirely on "strife".


Not sure where I said it was.  I'm not excusing the fact that the Constitution has been subverted since the beginning, due to strife.  I'm disagreeing with your stance that the Founders lived under the "best of circumstances".  And I agree that even they couldn't live up to the standards put forth in the Constitution.  I stated that here:




> I would argue that the founding era was not "the best possible circumstances".  *But I would agree that even the Founders couldn't live up to the high standards which were set in the Constitution*.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *you have NO idea what you are talking about.* you are like an A/C guy doing Refrigeration service work, yeah you got a clue, just enough to be dangerous.
> so, wise guy, what was the original intent? was it based on something?...mebbe?
> 
> if I have done a poor job of defining  the meaning of "original intent" why don't you go me one better?


Your ad hominem and condescension do not impress.  Your counterpoint is full of fail.  No one knows exactly what the "original intent" was, (unless you can read the minds of dead people), but we can glean ideas from what they left behind.   Hell, SCOTUS makes up their own version of "original intent" quite routinely.  Have you read "Hamilton's Curse"?  If not, do so.  DiLorenzo goes into quite great detail in explaining how the Federalists betrayed the spirit and "Principles Of '76".

----------


## Origanalist

> Sorry I can't +rep you anymore for now.  You're doing great things in this thread.


Done.

----------


## HVACTech

> Your ad hominem does not impress.  Your counterpoint is full of fail.  No one knows exactly what the "original intent" was, (unless you can read the minds of dead people), but we can glean ideas from what they left behind.  Have you read "Hamilton's Curse"?  If not, do so.  DiLorenzo goes into quite great detail in explaining how the Federalists betrayed the spirit and "Principles Of '76".


OMG! I hate it when that happens!

just because you can work on a heat pump does NOT mean that you are qualified for a multi-deck meat case azzhat.

"original intent" CANNOT be defined... eh..

too complicated for you?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Gentlemen,
> 
> Enjoying the conversation, I am the author of the essay and my main point is that the document was designed to promote and expand big government despite the protestations of both contemporary and modern observers.
> 
> It codified slavery both overtly and covertly.
> 
> Bill Buppert


Good article.

I don't know if you could pay most to read No Treason or his Letter to Grover Cleveland. Even here. Not many would be up to the task of rebutting his points piece by piece (and I don't blame them really as it would be a futile effort). It's still rather amusing how defensive some get. A document codifying the ownership and return of humans as property, only a minority of the population being able to vote, it never being agreed to nor being legally binding... there really is no case to be made for its supposed greatness. The majority of this country, I'd bet, have never even read the damn thing.

I never did in school, anyways. We barely studied the BoR.

In some regards though, it has slowed the pace of tyranny. Though it was tyrannous itself, things could be worse.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> OMG! I hate it when that happens!
> 
> just because you can work on a heat pump does NOT mean that you are qualified for a multi-deck meat case azzhat.
> 
> "original intent" CANNOT be defined... eh..
> 
> too complicated for you?


"Original intent" is disputable.

How long before a National Bank was established? Hell, how long before a Congressman was imprisoned for his words?

The recognizing of Natural Law means little when after in power they did what the hell they wanted to regardless. And even regardless of all that, it was never signed, agreed to, and is mostly unread by most all Americans. Social contract theory is a joke. The "representatives" are anything but, the people responsible for the current fiasco are largely unnamed, and no one in particular will ever be held accountable for their crimes.

----------


## Ronin Truth

It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head.  Send in the deprogrammers.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> *Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are?  I think so.*  And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it.  Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities.  The Quakers are sort of an example.  They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.


I would say yes as well. And I would say that had the articles of confederation remained in place, we would likely have ended up at this very same point, given the apathy of the populace. 

Again, we can point to a particular document and say, 'curse you document!, why did you not stop tyranny?' But tyrants don't fear a paper with words. They fear people with a passion for liberty and the willingness to preserve it.

It is unfortunate that we have only so few of the latter.

----------


## Ronin Truth

"We the People", my patootie. When it starts out with a bald-faced lie, you should SWAG that you are wading in deep doo-doo. That alone should have been a sufficient BS wake up call for the Federalist's con and the Freemason's hoodwink. 

Did NO ONE ever even think to ask, "Hey, where's TJ?". (Paris)

----------


## green73

> Limited government *is* possible.   But, it requires diligently violent Men to preserve it.


I say impossible because of the nature of politics: The worst rise to the top.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Thanks for writing that essay, I just reread it after waking up from a refreshing nap and I'd say it makes a good introduction into taking a more critical review of the documents of the Constitution.
> 
> As I said before, I really have to restudy the Constitution, which I should have a chance to do tonight. Going into the document with a more critical eye could be valuable for me... last time I came from a less discerning viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> Well first off I want to say that not everyone who is critical of the Constitution is an anarchist. I don't think you were implying that, because I don't usually consider myself an anarchist though I will say that sometimes anarchy does seem preferable to what we have now. In any case, that's one reason why along with taking another review of the Constitution, I'd like to review the Articles of Confederation as well. It sucks to admit, but I haven't really looked at them and it's something I should've done a long time ago. In school they hammered us over and over again telling us that the Articles made the Federal Government too "weak" and that they failed... and they never went into much more detail than that.
> 
> On your point about adhering to the Constitution... well I think that it goes without saying that our Government would be far smaller if we had stuck by it. It's crazy to think that, even if you are coming from a viewpoint where the Constitution is an enabler of bigger Government, that our current Government doesn't even follow it in over ninety percent of its decisions.


Friendly suggestion: You may want to consider starting your study here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf

----------


## Spikender

> Friendly suggestion: You may want to consider starting your study here:
> 
> http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf


Thanks. I actually just got finished rereading the Constitution and Bill of Rights and reading a few articles (punny) about different sections of it that are always called into question.

I've never actually read any of the Anti-Federalist papers other than snippets so this should be enlightening.

----------


## HVACTech

> Nonsense.  Aside from the Bill Of Rights, it has almost nothing to do with Natural Law.  Despite its problems, the AoC was a far better legal expression of Natural Law. The Federalists, if you read them carefully and in context, were definitely not the heroes of Classical Liberalism and Enlightenment as we are often led to believe.


sorry for the attitude last night.... anyhow. mebbe this might help you to understand.  


http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-...tional-law.php

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> sorry for the attitude last night.... anyhow. mebbe this might help you to understand.  
> 
> 
> http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-...tional-law.php


No worries, mate.  Hope I didn't come off as rude either.  ~hugs~  Your article doesn't prove its claim.  It's well known that the authors of the Constitution were familiar with natural law and the most famous of Natural Lawyers at the time.  There's absolutely no doubt about it.  At question is whether they applied Natural Law in the Constitution.  I disagree.  The plain text of the document is not inspired by natural law.  The Federalists and other Constitution fanboys at the time made some appeals to natural law, though.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I would say yes as well. And I would say that had the articles of confederation remained in place, we would likely have ended up at this very same point, given the apathy of the populace. 
> 
> Again, we can point to a particular document and say, 'curse you document!, why did you not stop tyranny?' *But tyrants don't fear a paper with words. They fear people with a passion for liberty and the willingness to preserve it.*
> 
> It is unfortunate that we have only so few of the latter.


Exactly.  That is why Constitutionalism is a failure in the long run.  It's a terribly naive to assume people will have the time and interest to monitor everything Leviathan does.  AND even if _Boobus_ was not profoundly ignorant and apathetic, they are still vastly out-gunned.  (even vastly more than the Continental Army was.  I doubt you have easy access to military gear and enough to supply a successful rebel army.)

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Thanks. I actually just got finished rereading the Constitution and Bill of Rights and reading a few articles (punny) about different sections of it that are always called into question.
> 
> I've never actually read any of the Anti-Federalist papers other than snippets so this should be enlightening.


You should check out _It is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong_ by Andrew Napolitano, _Who Killed the Constitution?_ by Tom Woods Jr. and Kevin Gutzman followed by_ No Treaon: The Constitution of No Authority_ by Lysander Spooner and then _A Letter to Grover Cleveland: On His False Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and The Consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People_ by Lysander Spooner.


Here is the audio book of No Treason, if you'd like to just skip ahead. 

Special Thanks to Mises.org




And the text, Special Thanks to LRC.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/l...-no-authority/

An excerpt of No Treason.




> *Sixth.* It is not improbable that many or most of the worst of governments --- although established by force, and by a few, in the first place --- come, in time, to be supported by a majority. But if they do, this majority is composed, in large part, of the most ignorant, superstitious, timid, dependent, servile, and corrupt portions of the people; of those who have been over-awed by the power, intelligence, wealth, and arrogance; of those who have been deceived by the frauds; and of those who have been corrupted by the inducements, of the few who really constitute the government. Such majorities, very likely, could be found in half, perhaps nine-tenths, of all the countries on the globe. What do they prove? Nothing but the tyranny and corruption of the very governments that have reduced so large portions of [*9] the people to their present ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption; an ignorance, servility, degradation, and corruption that are best illustrated in the simple fact that they do sustain governments that have so oppressed, degraded, and corrupted them. They do nothing towards proving that the governments themselves are legitimate; or that they ought to be sustained, or even endured, by those who understand their true character. The mere fact, therefore, that a government chances to be sustained by a majority, of itself proves nothing that is necessary to be proved, in order to know whether such government should be sustained, or not.


And here is his Letter to Grover Cleveland.

Special Thanks to Project Gutenberg.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35016

An excerpt from that letter:



> If A were to go to B, a merchant, and say to him, "Sir, I am a night-watchman, and I insist upon your employing me as such in protecting your property against burglars; and to enable me to do so more effectually, I insist upon your letting me tie your own hands and feet, so that you cannot interfere with me; and also upon your delivering up to me all your keys to your store, your safe, and to all your valuables; and that you authorize me to act solely and fully according to my own will, pleasure, and discretion in the matter; and I demand still further, that you shall give me an absolute guaranty that you will not hold me to any accountability whatever for anything I may do, or for anything that may happen to your goods while they are under my protection; and unless you comply with this proposal, I will now kill you on the spot,"—if A were to say all this to B, B would naturally conclude that A himself was the most impudent and dangerous burglar that he (B) had to fear; and that if he (B) wished to secure his property against burglars, his best way would be to kill A in the first place, and then take his chances against all such other burglars as might come afterwards. 
> 
> Our government constantly acts the part that is here supposed to be acted by A. And it is just as impudent a scoundrel as A is here supposed to be. It insists that every man shall give up all his rights unreservedly into its custody, and then hold it wholly irresponsible for any disposal it may make of them. And it gives him no alternative but death. 
> 
> If by putting a bayonet to a man's breast, and giving him his choice, to die, or be "protected in his rights," it secures his consent to the latter alternative, it then proclaims itself a free government,—a government resting on consent! 
> 
> You yourself describe such a government as "the best government ever vouchsafed to man." 
> 
> Can you tell me of one that is worse in principle? 
> ...


Lysander Spooner. A Letter to Grover Cleveland / On His False Inaugural Address, The Usurpations and Crimes / of Lawmakers and Judges, and the Consequent Poverty, / Ignorance, and Servitude Of The People (Kindle Locations 284-302).

----------


## 56ktarget

> The right to own a gun is the only reason you still have the right to flap your dick-sucker.  On second thought YOU (a communist) would still have the right, all opposed would be imprisoned for speaking their minds, kind of like Europe is today.


Paulite thinking:

"The way you affect change in a republic is through the barrel of a gun"

----------


## fr33

> Paulite thinking:
> 
> "The way you affect change in a republic is through the barrel of a gun"


If we want to change back to a liberated society, that's probably correct.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You know the country is going down the $#@!ter when people are more concerned about the right to own a gun than the economy/foreign policy/etc.


Gun ownership is not an end in itself.  Right thinking people are concerned about the inherent right to defend themselves from the predations of others, a right which they each reserve as a consequence of their humanity, logically & elementarily deduced through the objective principle of self-ownership.  The "second amendment" doesn't enter into the matter at all.  I don't give a toss what some powder-wigged dandies said about it 220 years ago, and I don't give a toss what you or anyone else think about it right now, quite frankly.  I own my life, just as you and everyone else own theirs.  People will inevitably initiate *unprovoked* physical and/or coercive violence against one another, which is in all cases immoral and unjust, regardless of the supposed authority they carry.  Under such circumstances, a human being has an absolute, God-given (or "natural", if you prefer) right to defend himself against assault.  And while I may grant you that most people "concerned about the right to own a gun" don't understand that right in such an existential fashion, I'd suggest that it is by no means an indicator that the country is "going down the $#@!ter".  

Furthermore, no person should have to concern himself with "the economy" or "foreign policy", and that they should in the current social paradigm is far more an indication that society is indeed in the $#@!ter than ill-informed advocacy of "gun rights".  An "economy" doesn't actually exist, at least not in the context to which you refer.  It only comes into being through interventionism by the authoritarian collectivist bullies who claim the "right" to make rules governing the free exchange of goods and services among human beings, or in other words, the initiation of unprovoked coercive and/or physical violence; so it is with "foreign policy", as well.  Indeed, that free people should be concerned at all about "the economy" or "foreign policy" is tacit justification for the right to "gun ownership".

----------


## familydog

> Can it be argued that if the Constitution had been adhered to all along, things would be significantly better than they currently are?  I think so.  And that is what upsets many of us (who are not anarchists) when we read articles trashing it.  Because if you think about it, if it had been adhered to all along, it is possible that even anarchists would have a solid place in American society, since they would have been free all along to create their own communities.  The Quakers are sort of an example.  They managed to do it to some extent, even with all of the subversion.


That's like saying "well, everything would be great if it weren't for those things that went wrong." It's an obvious statement, but not an argument.

Perhaps you can help me to understand, but I can't comprehend why the Constitution gets a free pass. The reality is that the Constitution never worked. You admit so in your statement. Therefore, why does it get the benefit of the doubt?

----------


## nobody's_hero

Okay, let's put it this way. 

The next time you buy a car, make sure you *don't* get anything in writing. If the dealership wants you to sign paperwork stating you understand the terms of the warranty, make sure you *don't* sign it. In fact, request that all copies of paperwork involved in the sale be shredded and the whole deal have no trace of evidence other than a handshake and good faith. 

Then when something goes wrong with your new car, well, at least you got it in writing. Oh but, that's right, you _didn't._ Ah, well, that's a problem.

---------------
That's kind of the purpose of the Constitution. It's existence doesn't mean that everyone involved is reputable, and honest, and will always uphold the terms of the agreement. It merely serves as something to look back on and justify your actions when you start . . . well, let's just say, 'doing away' with tyrants.

Only problem is, the only Americans with the guts, and/or the brains, to do that are all dead. Again, that's not a flaw in the Constitution. It's a flaw in the people.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Okay, let's put it this way. 
> 
> The next time you buy a car, make sure you *don't* get anything in writing. If the dealership wants you to sign paperwork stating you understand the terms of the warranty, make sure you *don't* sign it. In fact, request that all copies of paperwork involved in the sale be shredded and the whole deal have no trace of evidence other than a handshake and good faith. 
> 
> Then when something goes wrong with your new car, well, at least you got it in writing. Oh but, that's right, you _didn't._ Ah, well, that's a problem.
> 
> ---------------
> That's kind of the purpose of the Constitution. It's existence doesn't mean that everyone involved is reputable, and honest, and will always uphold the terms of the agreement. It merely serves as something to look back on and justify your actions when you start . . . well, let's just say, 'doing away' with tyrants.
> 
> Only problem is, the only Americans with the guts, and/or the brains, to do that are all dead. Again, that's not a flaw in the Constitution. It's a flaw in the people.


Yep, flawed Federalist people.  They highjacked and betrayed the American Revolution.  Then they defrauded the rest of the people with their bogus phony two bit CONstitution that they seemed to not be able to wait to violate, almost immediately. 

Gimmee a break!

*"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." -- H.L. Mencken
*

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Yep, flawed Federalist people.  They highjacked and betrayed the American Revolution.  Then they defrauded the rest of the people with their bogus phony two bit CONstitution that they seemed to not be able to wait to violate, almost immediately. 
> 
> Gimmee a break!
> 
> *"The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind." -- H.L. Mencken
> *


Ok. If the constitution did *not* exist, do you wish to think they would not have done whatever they wanted to do _anyway?_ Was it the constitution or was it the people who could not or WOULD NOT keep the power holders in check? 

Burn the constitution and see if tyranny *poof* goes away. Because obviously, if we could just get rid of that constitution then we'd magically be free again. At least, that seems to be the tone from some here.





> "Though 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 and recall the people." --Thomas Jefferson


In other words, the Constitution is more of a reminder than a binder, but if the people aren't interested in remembering, well we're screwed whether we have a constitution or not.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ok. If the constitution did *not* exist, do you wish to think they would not have done whatever they wanted to do _anyway?_ Was it the constitution or was it the people who could not or WOULD NOT keep the power holders in check? 
> 
> Burn the constitution and see if tyranny *poof* goes away. Because obviously, if we could just get rid of that constitution then we'd magically be free again. At least, that seems to be the tone from some here.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> In other words, the Constitution is more of a reminder than a binder, but if the people aren't interested in remembering, well we're screwed whether we have a constitution or not.*


Again, blaming "the people".  Patently absurd.  "The People" don't have the leverage necessary to actually make a difference.  Leviathan has the ability to outspend and outgun "the people" 8 ways from Sunday.  If you think they're really a-skeered of "the people" (beyond maintaining the illusion of their legitimacy in popular opinion), I have some seaside real estate in Nebraska to sell you.

----------


## idiom

Sometimes I feel like half the forum has me on ignore.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sometimes I feel like half the forum has me on ignore.


Could well be.  Wacky things go on around here.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Ok. If the constitution did *not* exist, do you wish to think they would not have done whatever they wanted to do _anyway?_ Was it the constitution or was it the people who could not or WOULD NOT keep the power holders in check? 
> 
> Burn the constitution and see if tyranny *poof* goes away. Because obviously, if we could just get rid of that constitution then we'd magically be free again. At least, that seems to be the tone from some here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the Constitution is more of a reminder than a binder, but if the people aren't interested in remembering, well we're screwed whether we have a constitution or not.


 Someone needed to stop Alexander Hamilton, the secret agent of the Bank of England and the Rothschilds relative by marriage. Aaron Burr, finally did, just a little too late. The Federalists became the first political party. Their big government agenda and the revolution heroes Washington, Adams, Franklin, etc. carried a lot of sway. They were opposed by another faction of the founding fathers, the Anti-Federalists. Only the votes of around 6,000 convention delegates, ratified the CONstitution, out of a estimated population of around 3 million (0.2%) at the time. Very few folks had any clue that the CONstitution coup was even going on. The communication systems were undeveloped and roads few and far between.

About 100 years later, Lysander Spooner was right on the money when he said:
*"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."*
Lysander Spooner

----------


## osan

> Bollocks. The quality of the average man has gone down.


No argument there, but what has that to do with the relative qualities between them and the average politician?




> Otherwise there would be rioting in the streets. Everyone *wants* what they are getting because they think they can get more out of the scam than everyone else is losing.


Not quite.  ENOUGH want what they are getting and ENOUGH are good distracted and ENOUGH are too lazy, and so forth.  NOT ENOUGH are willing to stand up and be counted, rifle and the willingness to use it in hand.  I'm certainly not going that path alone because I have no desire to die for the sake of the likes of Joey Meaner who, in my estimation, is not worth the cardboard match with which I would set his gasoline-soaked self ablaze.  And those worth fighting alongside appear to have failed to get themselves organized into a force with which to be reckoned.  Human nature, I suppose, and Theye know all about it and are taking the best advantage imaginable.  I applaud them on that, evil pricks that they are, because regardless of it all, credit must be given where due.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Again, blaming "the people".  Patently absurd.  "The People" don't have the leverage necessary to actually make a difference.  Leviathan has the ability to outspend and outgun "the people" 8 ways from Sunday.  If you think they're really a-skeered of "the people" (beyond maintaining the illusion of their legitimacy in popular opinion), I have some seaside real estate in Nebraska to sell you.


Um, no, it's not absurd. The people once beat up the most well-equipped empire known to man to obtain their independence. They haven't done it since. So yeah, I blame the people.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Um, no, it's not absurd. The people once beat up the most well-equipped empire known to man to obtain their independence. They haven't done it since. So yeah, I blame the people.


Are you_ seriously_ comparing 18th century warfare toys with 21st century stuff?   Unless you want to turn the entire countryside into Afghanistan West to level the playing field, you're deluding yourself. Your proposition is patently absurd.  Why would you blame "The People" for learning the lessons of Waco and every other citizen v Regime standoff *ever*?   (this is one of the few things _Boobus_ actually has a rational understanding of)

----------


## idiom

> Are you_ seriously_ comparing 18th century warfare toys with 21st century stuff?   Unless you want to turn the entire countryside into Afghanistan West to level the playing field, you're deluding yourself. Your proposition is patently absurd.  Why would you blame "The People" for learning the lessons of Waco and every other citizen v Regime standoff *ever*?   (this is one of the few things _Boobus_ actually has a rational understanding of)


Every cop has a house. Every 21st century weapon was developed by people who are not soldiers.

Hack a database, publish the address of every cop in America. Stick in an App.

Surprised nobody did this in Ferguson. Just follow the cops home.


My general point was, New Zealand has more freedom than the United States without a shred of a blessed 'Constitution'. Ergo the Constitution doesn't contribute to American Freedom.

Freedom doesn't come from paper documents, it never has and it never will. A document can form a rallying point but if you apotheosize it, it actually _loses_ its power.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Every cop has a house. Every 21st century weapon was developed by people who are not soldiers.
> 
> Hack a database, publish the address of every cop in America. Stick in an App.
> 
> Surprised nobody did this in Ferguson. Just follow the cops home.
> 
> 
> My general point was, New Zealand has more freedom than the United States without a shred of a blessed 'Constitution'. Ergo the Constitution doesn't contribute to American Freedom.
> *
> Freedom doesn't come from paper documents, it never has and it never will. A document can form a rallying point but if you apotheosize it, it actually loses its power*.


Indeed.  Whoever has the most money and firepower determines who gets teh freedomz.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Someone needed to stop Alexander Hamilton, the secret agent of the Bank of England and the Rothschilds relative by marriage. Aaron Burr, finally did, just a little too late. The Federalists became the first political party. Their big government agenda and the revolution heroes Washington, Adams, Franklin, etc. carried a lot of sway. They were opposed by another faction of the founding fathers, the Anti-Federalists. Only the votes of around 6,000 convention delegates, ratified the CONstitution, out of a estimated population of around 3 million (0.2%) at the time. Very few folks had any clue that the CONstitution coup was even going on. The communication systems were undeveloped and roads few and far between.
> 
> About 100 years later, Lysander Spooner was right on the money when he said:
> *"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."*
> Lysander Spooner


+rep

----------


## Ronin Truth

> +rep


 Thanks!

----------


## HVACTech

> +rep





> "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."


so, we should stop trying to understand it, and just get rid of it. 

is that your point?

----------


## green73

> so, we should stop trying to understand it, and just get rid of it. 
> 
> is that your point?


I'm glad we have nine robed deities interpreting it for us. That's worked out well.

----------


## green73

How glorious of a document that its conclusions are left up to endless interpretations!

----------


## Origanalist

> so, we should stop trying to understand it, and just get rid of it. 
> 
> is that your point?


I think that's already been taken care of.

----------


## HVACTech

> How glorious of a document that its conclusions are left up to endless interpretations!


if, it is based on the concept of Natural Law. then, it is very, very easy to understand. it is just common sense.

we should pattern our Laws based on the template that nature provides.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> so, we should stop trying to understand it, and just get rid of it. 
> 
> is that your point?


 I made the Spooner quote bold, not HB34, because I really like the quote AND Spooner. Has the CONstitution gotten any better since Spooner's time? Has the government made you more or less free than Spooner was?

----------


## Czolgosz

It doesn't take that many people to keep authoriarians in line.

----------


## fr33

> Um, no, it's not absurd. The people once beat up the most well-equipped empire known to man to obtain their independence. They haven't done it since. So yeah, I blame the people.


Do you blame all of the people? Or just those that haven't tried the "suicide by cop" thing? The empire in the past you are referring to didn't have combustion engines or even missiles or the surveillance capabilities that the empire today has. The peasants that fought back had the same weapons but also had an ocean that was more difficult to cross.

It's actually the same empire. The constitution just opened up more seats at the table for more rulers.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

The Constitution is just a piece of paper, if it's not enforced by the people subject to it and those that have a portion of their natural rights given to it.

There is no contract that is naturally binding except that each hold the others feet to the fire out in the open before the world as a witness.

I'd say that it's time for a hell of a bone fire.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Um, no, it's not absurd. The people once beat up the most well-equipped empire known to man to obtain their independence. They haven't done it since. So yeah, I blame the people.


*Periodic revolution, “at least once every 20 years,” was “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” -- Thomas Jefferson 3rd President (1801-1809)*

Only overdue about 12 iterations.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Meh...the Anti Federalists were right, of course.

Spot on, they foretold exactly what would happen under the 1787 constitution.

Bad as it is, think of the bind we'd be in without a Bill of Rights.

----------


## familydog

> Bad as it is, think of the bind we'd be in without a Bill of Rights.


How so? 

The Bill of Rights is redundant. It prohibits the federal government from doing certain activities that are already not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.

With that said, the Bill of Rights has been used as a grant of power to the federal government. The (illegally ratified) Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government sweeping powers over state governments. This is a complete reversal of the original intent of the Bill of Rights. If you believe that this is a good interpretation of an illegally ratified amendment, then you favor a stronger federal government.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How glorious of a document that its conclusions are left up to endless interpretations!


indeed, comrade!

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Do you blame all of the people? Or just those that haven't tried the "suicide by cop" thing? The empire in the past you are referring to didn't have combustion engines or even missiles or the surveillance capabilities that the empire today has. The peasants that fought back had the same weapons but also had an ocean that was more difficult to cross.
> 
> It's actually the same empire. The constitution just opened up more seats at the table for more rulers.


It's relative. I would say it is no more insane to go up against a modern government than it was for a few thousand colonists to fight off the British empire in their day. (How long has our government been fighting a few thousand poor AK-47-wielding camel-riders?) But it's moot, because in any case, it won't happen. The closest the American people came in recent time was the bundy standoff, but thanks to the A.D.D. of Joe Average, that's all forgotten. 

For those of you who insist that all our problems are caused by the Constitution, ask yourself this:

If the constitution were burned tomorrow, would freedom return? If we threw it in a bone (sic) fire, would Obama be like, "oh $#@!, well, my fun is over", or would he take it upon himself to go full tyrant without any pesky rule of law whatsoever to hold him back? 

If the Constitution is the only thing holding us back from enjoying true freedom, by all means, burn it, but don't be disappointed when nothing changes, except the fact that then we now we have nothing to base our complaints on other than our own opinions, which our rulers value even less than the Constitution.

It's funny how some of you see the constitution as so utterly meaningless, and yet apparently we are to believe that it is _so_ meaningless, it is somehow the source of our problems. It sort of has to be one or the other.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It's relative. I would say it is no more insane to go up against a modern government than it was for a few thousand colonists to fight off the British empire in their day. But it's moot, because in any case, it won't happen. The closest we came was the bundy standoff, but thanks to the A.D.D. of Joe Average, that's all forgotten. 
> 
> For those of you who insist that all our problems are caused by the Constitution, ask yourself this:
> 
> If the constitution were burned tomorrow, would freedom return? If we threw it in a bone (sic) fire, would Obama be like, "oh $#@!, well, my fun is over", or would he take it upon himself to go full tyrant without any pesky rule of law whatsoever to hold him back? 
> 
> If the Constitution is the only thing holding us back, by all means, burn it, but don't be disappointed when nothing changes, except the fact that then we now we have nothing to base our complaints on other than our own opinions, which our rulers value even less than the Constitution.


Am I missing something?  Is there really any difference between ignoring an old yellow piece of paper with disappearing ink and ignoring a pile of burned ashes?  Mox Nix!

----------


## idiom

> if, it is based on the concept of Natural Law. then, it is very, very easy to understand. it is just common sense.
> 
> we should pattern our Laws based on the template that nature provides.


Have you met nature? What the hell are you talking about? Nature is what you get when you stop being civilized.

Nature is extremely authoritarian.

----------


## idiom

> It's funny how some of you see the constitution as so utterly meaningless, and yet apparently we are to believe that it is _so_ meaningless, it is somehow the source of our problems. It sort of has to be one or the other.


The belief in the Constitution instead of people is the problem.

Nothing wrong with the Constitution, but its powerless to bind a corrupt society. Burning it wouldn't fix the society, but it might open eyes.

----------


## HVACTech

> Have you met nature? What the hell are you talking about? Nature is what you get when you stop being civilized.
> 
> Nature is extremely authoritarian.


nature has systems that WORK.

the 2nd law of thermodynamics is also rather... "authoritarian".
please notice, that I used the words, pattern and template.

those words do not denote absolutes. 
nature provides very clear guidelines, violating them is silly.

I thank you for making my own point very well. the concept of "Natural Law" (common sense)
has been selectively edited from out of our educational system and conscious. 

peace.

----------


## 56ktarget

Funny how paulites who think the constitution is somehow the work of god are now wishing to see it burned.

----------


## Origanalist

> Funny how paulites who think the constitution is somehow the work of god are now wishing to see it burned.


Everything's funny to you.

----------


## idiom

> Funny how paulites who think the constitution is somehow the work of god are now wishing to see it burned.


Its just a ruler to see how crooked ones populace is. Wishing ill of the Constitution or reifying it in other ways is just a logical fallacy. The same with natural laws and treating them as real things.

----------


## idiom

> nature has systems that WORK.
> 
> the 2nd law of thermodynamics is also rather... "authoritarian".
> please notice, that I used the words, pattern and template.
> 
> those words do not denote absolutes. 
> nature provides very clear guidelines, violating them is silly.
> 
> I thank you for making my own point very well. the concept of "Natural Law" (common sense)
> ...


The current American government works. Hell, Sharia 'works'.

Bacteria work, but more complex cells can be more efficient. If anything nature tries to improve on what came before, not reduce it to simplicity.

The term 'common sense' includes a tonne of unjustified assumptions and a severe lack of critical analysis. Building on the shaky foundation of 'common sense' is what makes both objectivism and authoritarianism fall apart.

e.g. Its common sense that you have a right to travel. Its also common sense that you don't have a right to trespass on private land. Now what happens when all the roads are private?

You can change countries and suddenly its common sense that only dead people can own land.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Natural Law, or The Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner
https://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_1/3_1_7.pdf

Here's a replacement Constitution for you. "Do as you please - but harm no other in their person or property."

The old one is mainly an org chart.

----------


## idiom

> Natural Law, or The Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner
> https://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_1/3_1_7.pdf
> 
> Here's a replacement Constitution for you. "Do as you please - but harm no other in their person or property."
> 
> The old one is mainly an org chart.


Nature has absolutely zero problem with you doing harm to others.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Nature has absolutely zero problem with you doing harm to others.


Try picking on some grizzly cubs.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nature has absolutely zero problem with you doing harm to others.


In this context, "Natural Law" means: Classically, *natural law* refers to the use of reason to analyze  human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of  moral behavior from it.
(per wiki)

----------


## idiom

> Try picking on some grizzly cubs.


Grizzlys are endangered. Is Nature going to prosecute humanity?

----------


## idiom

> In this context, "Natural Law" means: Classically, *natural law* refers to the use of reason to analyze  human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of  moral behavior from it.
> (per wiki)


Yeah and its another example of massively abusing English based on biases held by the source. Like using 'Anarchy' to describe Rothbardian Capitalism. Its orwellian abuse of language.




> we should pattern our Laws based on the template that nature provides


Is the definition given. The problem is that 'natures template' that is being cited is a specific breed of western social philosophy. Something invented out of whole cloth and only held to by a portion of humanity.

This is cited as the 'natural template' for all of humanity revealing serious ideological bias.

Its a rubbish term and we should stop using it. Reifying a small part modern western civilization as something real and a part of the 'natural world' is total bollocks.

To get back on topic, this type of thinking is the biggest flaw in modern America.

*The Constitution isn't a distillation of human nature. Humans will not gravitate to it naturally. It is completely artificial and if people are taught otherwise, they won't fight to protect it.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Grizzlys are endangered. Is Nature going to prosecute humanity?


Mama grizzly (Nature) is gonna do a major whup-ass on anyone messing with her cubs.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah and its another example of massively abusing English based on biases held by the source. Like using 'Anarchy' to describe Rothbardian Capitalism. *Its orwellian abuse of language.
> *
> 
> 
> Is the definition given. The problem is that 'natures template' that is being cited is a specific breed of western social philosophy. Something invented out of whole cloth and only held to by a portion of humanity.
> 
> This is cited as the 'natural template' for all of humanity revealing serious ideological bias.
> 
> Its a rubbish term and we should stop using it. Reifying a small part modern western civilization as something real and a part of the 'natural world' is total bollocks.
> ...


That's not abusing the language.  It's semantic shift.  In the case of Rothbard, it's idiomatic and using the traditional meaning of the a-word (without a ruler).  I've long thought anarchists should pick a better word to keep up with the semantic drift in modern English, but it's just another case of people stubbornly ignoring my wisdom. :P

ETA: Notice also that "capitalism" no longer means what it meant when it was coined.  It has been used in so many ways by so many people that you need to qualify it with "laissez-faire" if you mean to describe what people in classical liberal circles typically mean.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> That's not abusing the language. It's semantic shift. In the case of Rothbard, it's idiomatic and using the traditional meaning of the a-word (without a ruler). I've long thought anarchists should pick a better word to keep up with the semantic drift in modern English, but it's just another case of people stubbornly ignoring my wisdom. :P
> 
> ETA: Notice also that "capitalism" no longer means what it meant when it was coined. It has been used in so many ways by so many people that you need to qualify it with "laissez-faire" if you mean to describe what people in classical liberal circles typically mean.


FWIW, LeFevre preferred "autarchist", self rule.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> FWIW, LeFevre preferred "autarchist", self rule.


Indeed!  Butler Schaffer gives LeFevre credit for that term and uses it himself in a lot of his essays and books.   It really is a better word, IMO.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Indeed! Butler Schaffer gives LeFevre credit for that term and uses it himself in a lot of his essays and books.  It really is a better word, IMO.


 Both Butler and I attended the LeFevre seminar.  Unfortunately not the same one, at the same time.  

This is pretty much the course schema. 

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-L...1684365&sr=1-1

----------


## HVACTech

> The current American government works. Hell, Sharia 'works'.
> 
> Bacteria work, but more complex cells can be more efficient. If anything nature tries to improve on what came before, not reduce it to simplicity.
> 
> The term 'common sense' includes a tonne of unjustified assumptions and a severe lack of critical analysis. Building on the shaky foundation of 'common sense' is what makes both objectivism and authoritarianism fall apart.
> 
> 
> 
> e.g. Its common sense that you have a right to travel. Its also common sense that you don't have a right to trespass on private land. Now what happens when all the roads are private?
> ...


oh, now I get it...

"An idiom is a phrase where the words together have a meaning that is different from the dictionary definitions of the individual words"

ignore me if I ever take you seriously again.

----------


## idiom

> oh, now I get it...
> 
> "An idiom is a phrase where the words together have a meaning that is different from the dictionary definitions of the individual words"
> 
> ignore me if I ever take you seriously again.


Full name is "idiom axiom".

Not going to explain what I mean, and I sure ain't going to justify it.

----------


## fr33

> Funny how paulites who think the constitution is somehow the work of god are now wishing to see it burned.


It's funny that you know nothing about us but continue to spout a bunch of $#@! about us regardless of what you know.

----------


## idiom

> Mama grizzly (Nature) is gonna do a major whup-ass on anyone messing with her cubs.


If the state wasn't protecting grizzly bears, mama would be a picture in a natural history book, along with her cubs.

Maybe that would be a good thing. It would be a very Randian thing for sure, remaking the Earth in the image of the strong and all that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I believe my neg rep just brought 56K down to 4 bars...

----------


## HVACTech

> Full name is "idiom axiom".
> 
> Not going to explain what I mean, and I sure ain't going to justify it.


thank you! 
complicated technical stuff, is VERY difficult for me.  

and yes, I DO think you DESERVE 15 an hour!!!

"An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

ya know, that sure sounds like a reference to natural law IDIOM. 

are you familiar with the error code, IT10T?

----------


## fr33

> For those of you who insist that all our problems are caused by the Constitution, ask yourself this:
> 
> If the constitution were burned tomorrow, would freedom return? If we threw it in a bone (sic) fire, would Obama be like, "oh $#@!, well, my fun is over", or would he take it upon himself to go full tyrant without any pesky rule of law whatsoever to hold him back?


Burning the actual physical document would do nothing. I don't think anyone is advocating for that. It's symbolic. Most people criticizing the document are scoffing at the illusion of a constitutional republic that we live in.  That illusion won't end until it stops being an illusion and allows secession or the empire collapses. There are good and bad arguments for whichever one of those scenarios will happen.




> It's funny how some of you see the constitution as so utterly meaningless, and yet apparently we are to believe that it is _so_ meaningless, it is somehow the source of our problems. It sort of has to be one or the other.


Believing that we are part of a free country, when we are not, is what constitutionalism has promoted ever since it was signed. It's a placebo that allows tyranny. 

"We just have to get back to that time in our history when we were not free but believed we were. Kind of like.... now."

 George Washington should have been hanged during the Whiskey Rebellion. Instead, thanks to the work of his colleagues, he is regarded as the father of our country; this great constitutional republic where we won't stand for taxation without representation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Believing that we are part of a free country, when we are not, is what constitutionalism has promoted ever since it was signed. It's a placebo that allows tyranny. "We just have to get back to that time in our history when we were not free but believed we were. Kind of like.... now." _George Washington should have been hanged during the Whiskey Rebellion._ Instead, thanks to the work of his colleagues, he is regarded as the father of our country; this great constitutional republic where we won't stand for taxation without representation.


Yikes, that is harsh.  I actually like Washington, comparatively speaking.  Its on the matter of Saint Abraham (Lincoln) where I am most bitterly opposed from nearly unanimously held opinions on Presidents.

Mind you, I am a  voluntarist.  I don't like the idea of even having a President.  But Washington's abuses were comparatively minor, from what I understand.

----------


## fr33

> Yikes, that is harsh.  I actually like Washington, comparatively speaking.  Its on the matter of Saint Abraham (Lincoln) where I am most bitterly opposed from nearly unanimously held opinions on Presidents.
> 
> Mind you, I am a  voluntarist.  I don't like the idea of even having a President.  But Washington's abuses were comparatively minor, from what I understand.


Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Burning the actual physical document would do nothing. I don't think anyone is advocating for that. It's symbolic. Most people criticizing the document are scoffing at the illusion of a constitutional republic that we live in.  That illusion won't end until it stops being an illusion and allows secession or the empire collapses. There are good and bad arguments for whichever one of those scenarios will happen.
> 
> 
> Believing that we are part of a free country, when we are not, is what constitutionalism has promoted ever since it was signed. It's a placebo that allows tyranny. 
> 
> "We just have to get back to that time in our history when we were not free but believed we were. Kind of like.... now."
> 
>  George Washington should have been hanged during the Whiskey Rebellion. Instead, thanks to the work of his colleagues, he is regarded as the father of our country; this great constitutional republic where we won't stand for taxation without representation.


+rep

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion


I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion.  I agree that what Washington did was wrong.  But, I don't see how its any different than anything any State has ever done in history.  Washington even pardoned the rebels, as I recall, which is far more than any modern politician would do.

Don't get me wrong, its a big issue.  I'm not saying Washington was a saint.  But, voluntarism hadn't been systematized at that point.  I'm not certain it ever existed since the time of the Judges.  Washington was offered ABSOLUTE power and rejected it, only reluctantly agreeing to be President, and then stepped down after two terms... I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but I do believe he was a decent man.

----------


## fr33

> I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion.  I agree that what Washington did was wrong.  But, I don't see how its any different than anything any State has ever done in history.  Washington even pardoned the rebels, as I recall, which is far more than any modern politician would do.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, its a big issue.  I'm not saying Washington was a saint.  But, voluntarism hadn't been systematized at that point.  I'm not certain it ever existed since the time of the Judges.  Washington was offered ABSOLUTE power and rejected it, only reluctantly agreeing to be President, and then stepped down after two terms... I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but I do believe he was a decent man.


General Washington's army was inspired by the Boston Tea Party. Then he ordered the murders of people who resisted his own policies that mimicked the Tea Act. He was a tool of the Federalists and thanks to people like him, the United States made England out to be pikers in the realm of Imperialism.

----------


## idiom

> "An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."
> 
> ya know, that sure sounds like a reference to natural law IDIOM. 
> 
> are you familiar with the error code, IT10T?


The axioms of 'natural law' are generally not accepted without controversy. Ergo the 'axioms' are not axioms and arguments built on top of them are not properly founded.

----------


## idiom

DOUBLE POST

----------


## idiom

T_T_TRIPLE POST

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The axioms of 'natural law' are generally not accepted without controversy. Ergo the 'axioms' are not axioms and arguments built on top of them are not properly founded.


Please describe "controversy."

Arguments founded on the basis of natural law are built on sounder foundation than robbing all based on majority consent. Regardless of what the axiom is.

As if an argument cannot be properly reasoned without _some_ majority's confirmation.

----------


## osan

> Funny how paulites who think the constitution is somehow the work of god are now wishing to see it burned.


Funny how everything you post appears void of any probative value.

----------


## osan

> I'm aware of the Whiskey Rebellion.  I agree that what Washington did was wrong.


And yet, it did not precipitate the first civil war as should have been the case.  Had the people of the new land been of the correct attitude, everyone from Washington on down would have been publicly hung by the necks until they were dead after having been hauled up, rather than dropped down.  We have been ruled by tyrants since the very first days.  That is not to say America was not different.  It was, but only in degree and not in anything fundamental.  This is a crucial point that so few see, mostly because they refuse to, rather than due to any organic inability.

I have strong regard for Jefferson, but even he fell to temptation as president.  It's what people _do_ when placed in positions that offer such temptation.  There are few exceptions to this.  Ron Paul appears to be one of them.




> But, I don't see how its any different than anything any State has ever done in history.


Perhaps so, but it was _supposed_ to be different.  This was supposed to be something better than SOS Empire, yet in the end it was only by the splits of hairs precisely because the tyrant had his hand up our collective ass the whole time and we never shook him off as all moral duty would have dictated.  The imposition of the grossly flawed Constitution upon the greater body of the population should have seen every signer and every ratifier hung, shot, or left to languish in a dungeon for an eon.  But we failed in our responsibilities to ourselves and our fellows.  This may be excusable because thought forms reality and in those days certain avenues of thought were obviously very different from what they are today.  But the benefit of our 20/20 hindsight still reveals the shame of opportunity wasted.  It has been downhill from there.  Why were the justices of the SCOTUS not hung from their necks unto death for their unanimous act of treason in the 1803 Marbury decision, one of the grandest usurpations of our history?




> Washington even pardoned the rebels, as I recall, which is far more than any modern politician would do.


Pardoned the rebels for rebelling against Washington's unforgivable transgression against their sovereign rights?  How white of him.




> Don't get me wrong, its a big issue.  I'm not saying Washington was a saint.  But, _voluntarism hadn't been systematized_ at that point.  I'm not certain it ever existed since the time of the Judges.  Washington was offered ABSOLUTE power and rejected it, only reluctantly agreeing to be President, and then stepped down after two terms... I'm not saying he was a perfect man, but I do believe he was a decent man.


How is the "systematization" (whatever the hell that might even mean in this case) of the undefined term "voluntarism" relevant?  The notions of liberty were well established and understood by the Framers.  Washington has no excuse.  He was a tyrant, plain and simple and all his presumed good intentions notwithstanding.  The best of intentions absolves one not a whit of the crime of violating the rights of others.  He should have been publicly executed before a standing-room only crowd such that the people of this land would have had set for them early on the stark and terrifying precedent of the fate that awaits all tyrants and other criminals.  Always offer the opportunity to amend that which may be amended.  For those who refuse and for those things that cannot be set right, the penalties should be severe, most especially for anyone employed by so-called "government", from president to local dog catcher.  Violate the sovereignty of your fellows and suffer a fate that would have you wishing you'd been flayed alive and boiled in oil.

I truly suspect that the number of people on this rock who truly understand the deeper meanings of proper human relations can be counted on one hand.  The stray-leading presumptions nearly everyone holds are simply mind-boggling.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

+rep for osan

----------


## idiom

Saw this, thought of you guys

----------


## idiom

> Please describe "controversy."
> 
> Arguments founded on the basis of natural law are built on sounder foundation than robbing all based on majority consent. Regardless of what the axiom is.
> 
> As if an argument cannot be properly reasoned without _some_ majority's confirmation.


Evaluating the soundness of a logical argument based on its utility?

I can't even.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Evaluating the soundness of a logical argument based on its utility?
> 
> I can't even.


Robbing all, I mean taxing them, to pay for certain people's things is so widely accepted as legitimate one could _attempt_ to describe the premise as an axiom. I don't particularly care to do so.

Theft is theft is theft.

I don't care how people come to that conclusion, only that they do.

If you wish to debate the merits of natural law versus other legal _axioms_ (theories, rather) I am sure there are people up to the task. One member here even developed his own and has spoken a bit about the shortcomings of natural law. It's just not how I particularly care to spend my day, most importantly, secondly, it doesn't really matter how people come to the conclusion that theft is immoral, and thirdly I wouldn't be the best candidate to participate in such a debate.

----------


## osan

> The axioms of 'natural law' are generally not accepted without controversy.


Neither are any others, so what is your point?  Besides, controversy in itself fails to invalidate... and yet, people use the term in the way you apparently do here, precisely with that goal in mind.




> Ergo the 'axioms' are not axioms and arguments built on top of them are not properly founded.


Sweet Jesus, what a screaming, flailing non sequitur!  You may as well have put it this way:

Proxima Centauri is 4 light years away.  Ergo, my dick is ten feet long.
Seriously, you have here given a truly spectacular example of failed logic.  Not only is your argument non-cogent, I would be money I don't have that it is also demonstrably false.  Then again, you have not provided your examples of these "non-axioms", so perhaps you might start with that and demonstrate how they fail.  Otherwise, we have nothing to exchange here but empty words.

----------


## Origanalist

> Saw this, thought of you guys


Am I the only one that finds this to be a sign of a disturbed mind?

----------


## HVACTech

> Saw this, thought of you guys


saw this, thought of you.

----------


## Origanalist

> saw this, thought of you.


OK, it's getting weird.....

----------


## Christian Liberty

> +rep for osan


You think Washington should have been hanged?

----------


## fr33

> You think Washington should have been hanged?


Look to what you're saying and defending. You've called modern day soldiers murderers and have had little sympathy to any consequences they face. You've expressed the opinion that abortionists should be killed and many more govt agents than that.

George Washington ordered the deaths of people that refused to pay taxes. Spare me your silly outrage. Do you still believe he chopped down a cherry tree and all that other propaganda? It's ok to destroy property and start a war over tea taxes but not over whiskey taxes? Methinks your protestantism is showing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Look to what you're saying and defending.


I was simply asking.




> You've called modern day soldiers murderers and have had little sympathy to any consequences they face.


I've stated that those who kill them while defending their countries are justified, but I certainly don't wish harm to come to them either.  That said, that's more because their ignorant in general than because of some high moral belief that we shouldn't wish harm on people (sometimes I do whether I like it or not.)



> You've expressed the opinion that abortionists should be killed and many more govt agents than that.


Well, George Tiller in particular killed FAR more people than Washington ever did.  Sure, you could argue that its just a matter of degree, but still.




> George Washington ordered the deaths of people that refused to pay taxes. Spare me your silly outrage.


I'm not outraged.  I just don't see Washington as exceptional in this regard.  If you want to say that everyone who has been POTUS deserves to be hanged, fine.  But comparatively speaking Washington was one of the better ones.




> Do you still believe he chopped down a cherry tree and all that other propaganda?


No, of course not.  But even if he did, who cares?  What would that have to do with any of this?



> It's ok to destroy property and start a war over tea taxes but not over whiskey taxes? Methinks your protestantism is showing.


lol... no, I think the Pennsylvania farmers were completely justified in resisting.  But, if anything I'd argue that Washington should have been hanged for slave-holding before that.

----------


## fr33

> lol... no, I think the Pennsylvania farmers were completely justified in resisting.  But, if anything I'd argue that Washington should have been hanged for slave-holding before that.


Then stop acting like you want to defend Washington for multiple pages on this topic. It's disingenuous. That's exactly why I brought up the cherry tree story.

----------


## HVACTech

> OK, it's getting weird.....


whut? 

I thought I used both an idiom and an axiom....

are you making fun of me?

----------


## Origanalist

> whut? 
> 
> I thought I used both an idiom and an axiom....
> 
> are you making fun of me?


Well of course I would never do that, I guess it's just my strange way of expressing myself.

----------


## osan

> That's pretty damning of the "Founding Fathers", and the cult that has grown around them over the centuries, isn't it?  (That is, the historical people the Constitutionalists would have us look to as role models couldn't even operate properly in their own time and under the best possible circumstances)


Well, yes.  Noble and haughty words don't count for much when the actions are the same old rotten thing.

But they were men, after all, and not gods as some would imply.  Jefferson was a great man, but still a man and it became apparent during his presidency.  He was not a particularly good president, by absolute standards, though stellar when compared with the likes of Lewinksy's bitch, the shrubs, and Bammy.  However, for me "almost" doesn't cut the mustard.  Freedom is an all-or-nothing deal.  One is either free, or is something else.  We are all something else and we have never been anything other than that. 

The tyranny is built into the American system, but most people fail to see it because the basic assumptions under which their minds labor blind them to the deeper truth.  Generally speaking, people want the impossible: freedom and a _guarantee_ of security.  The two are mutually exclusive, and yet people refuse to accept this.  They fail to recognize the difference between an absolute guarantee of security and its _optimal assurance_.  Only true freedom allows for latter, whereas the former is only achievable as an _illusion_ and only under conditions of tyrannical governance masquerading as rightful authority.  It is a grand lie and people lap it up because believing the lie saves them from facing the scary truth about the very real dangers of life; dangers that cannot be escaped; dangers that, when turned away from in cowardice do not cause them to vanish but only render one's position in the world all the more precarious.  

The average human being today is a rank coward and I am reminded of the testimony scene in "A Few Good Men" where the good Col. Jessup speaks of men with guns who walk the wall so that those within may sleep peacefully at night.  He identified and nut-shelled precisely that which is centrally wrong with Americans today: they want all the benefits with none of the costs, but will settle for the the mere and cheap illusion of those benefits and are willing to pay the impossibly high price those lies carry.  Anything, so long as little Joey and Janey Meaner are not required to face the scary monsters that lurk just beyond the cast of their campfire lights.  And let us not ignore the terrible inconvenience that responsibility for oneself imposes upon the once "upwardly mobile" American.  They have a _right! _ Banish any thought of assuming the care and feeding of your own life because "we" are not qualified.  Theye, however, are.  By what means and authority are never clearly revealed.  We live in a quagmire of tacit assumptions, the questioning of which is not tolerated; and so we do not ask.  

Well, I am asking and on 10/2 I will stand before a magistrate for a seatbelt citation and I assure you that before I am done, I will politely corner the judge with questions.  Every bull$#@! answer he gives will be met with more questions.  He will either toss me out or toss me into a cell.  I will no longer stand for that which goes on here.  It will make no whit of difference, save to end me up in a cell, but I no longer care about that.  I will let everyone know how it works out.

----------


## osan

> You seem to be appealing to the "social contract" theory.  Lysander Spooner thoroughly destroyed that in "No Treason: The Constitution Of No Authority".  (Others have done good work on the subject since then, but Spooner's piece is the best I've read)


Not sure what you mean here.  Not even sure how you define "social contract", a term that appears to have no rigorous and universal definition.  Therefore, I cannot answer with any intelligence without setting the foundation of understanding.  That would take too much time and I have things to do today, but I will speak loosely and hopefully clearly enough that we understand each other.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to the notion of a "social contract".  As I understand the term, it is an oxymoron representing an impossibility, when taken in the context of the six elements of contracts.  For example, one cannot be "born into" the so-called social contract.  There is no offer; there is no explicit acceptance; a newborn lacks capacity; given the preceding, the contract cannot be "lawful"; there can be no intention to enter into legal relations (speaks largely to capacity).  The only remotely plausible element that might be present is "consideration", and that can be only speculative where infants are concerned.

Give all that, the social contract is an utter impossibility.  It is a unicorn with a cotton-candy mane.

Therefore, we banish the nonsense of "social contract" to the dustbin where it belongs.  But what, then, might be the basis of proper human relations?  Simply this: equal claims to life.  Of those claims are in fact equal and if they are not arbitrary, then the only proper conclusion to which one may arrive is that the equal rights of each man draws about him a boundary within which no other may pass without  his explicit and qualified permission.  I will not go into the deeper logic here, but it is simple and easily identified by anyone seeking to find it.  It ain't rocket surgery.

What does that mean?  It means that rather than being a party top an impossibility, we rather carry a duty to one another to respect those boundaries with propriety and all good faith.  What is the basis of that duty?  Whence does it issue?  The answer there is equally clear: it issues from the basic rights of the Individual that follow from his basic claim to life.  It is a pragmatic basis as much as philosophical.  The right to life directly implies the right to defend it.  The right to defend life implies the right to the means of defense.  Given that right and its exercise, the violation of the rightful boundaries of one man by another places the violator at all jeopardy because those whom he violates carry with them the prerogative to take whatever action they deem necessary to repel an invader of his territory.  Therefore, on the practical level, the violator risks his own life and limb when he chooses to trespass upon his fellows.

There is substantially more to it that what I write here, but this should be sufficient for now.

----------


## Deborah K

> That's like saying "well, everything would be great if it weren't for those things that went wrong." It's an obvious statement, but not an argument.
> 
> Perhaps you can help me to understand, but I can't comprehend why the Constitution gets a free pass. The reality is that the Constitution never worked. You admit so in your statement. Therefore, why does it get the benefit of the doubt?


Nothing works, that's put in writing, unless you put it into practice, and adhere to it.  A business plan, a to-do list, a contract, a Constitution....what's so hard to understand about that?

----------


## Deborah K

> *The belief in the Constitution instead of people is the problem*.
> 
> Nothing wrong with the Constitution, but its powerless to bind a corrupt society. Burning it wouldn't fix the society, but it might open eyes.


Why can't you do both?  Why does it have to be one or the other?

----------


## DaninPA

> +rep for osan


And some from me

----------


## familydog

> Nothing works, that's put in writing, unless you put it into practice, and adhere to it.  A business plan, a to-do list, a contract, a Constitution....what's so hard to understand about that?


A business plan, a to-do list and a contract are all voluntary. The Constitution is not voluntary. It is unreasonable to expect people to follow a document that they never agreed to in the first place. 

With that said, when do you believe people stopped following the Constitution? George Washington started the ball rolling with his actions during the Whiskey Rebellions. It took only about four years before people stopped following the Constitution, as written. That's not a great track record.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Nothing works, that's put in writing, unless you put it into practice, and adhere to it.  A business plan, a to-do list, a contract, a Constitution....what's so hard to understand about that?


There's nothing hard to understand about it.  It just doesn't work_ in practice_.  Kinda like how we dismiss the commies because of the vast disparity between the rather egalitarian theory and its fail in practice.

----------


## Deborah K

> There's nothing hard to understand about it.  It just doesn't work_ in practice_.  Kinda like how we dismiss the commies because of the vast disparity between the rather egalitarian theory and its fail in practice.


Do you mean to imply that it _never_ works in practice?  Nothing is foolproof, not even voluntarism.

----------


## Deborah K

> A business plan, a to-do list and a contract are all voluntary. The Constitution is not voluntary. It is unreasonable to expect people to follow a document that they never agreed to in the first place.


No one points a gun at the people's representatives when they vow to adhere to the Constitution.




> With that said, when do you believe people stopped following the Constitution? George Washington started the ball rolling with his actions during the Whiskey Rebellions. It took only about four years before people stopped following the Constitution, as written. That's not a great track record


Yes, I alluded to that already in earlier posts.  It's a high standard, that even the Founders couldn't abide by.  But that doesn't speak to anything other than the common man's inability to refrain from corruption - Dr. Paul notwithstanding.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Do you mean to imply that it never works in practice? * Nothing is foolproof, not even voluntarism.


Yes, it never works in practice.  You can see this by poking your figurative finger at any point in 230+ years of Constitution history you choose.  I reckon it could work in very, very small egalitarian societies cut off from the rest of the world.  These people would have to have a common history and subjective value system.  The more complicated any sort of system becomes, the less stable it becomes.
WRT Voluntaryism, they understand the imperfections in human nature-hence the various models of justice systems.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, it never works in practice.  You can see this by poking your figurative finger at any point in 230+ years of Constitution history you choose.  I reckon it could work in very, very small egalitarian societies cut off from the rest of the world.  These people would have to have a common history and subjective value system.  The more complicated any sort of system becomes, the less stable it becomes.
> WRT Voluntaryism, they understand the imperfections in human nature-hence the various models of justice systems.


I don't believe the Constitution is really that "complicated".  Some of the amendments are ridiculous though.   I just think it's pointless to blame a document for all our ills.  Like Dr. Paul states - it all really boils down to what a person believes the role of government ought to be.

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes, it never works in practice.  You can see this by poking your figurative finger at any point in 230+ years of Constitution history you choose.  I reckon it could work in very, very small egalitarian societies cut off from the rest of the world.  These people would have to have a common history and subjective value system.  The more complicated any sort of system becomes, the less stable it becomes.
> WRT Voluntaryism, they understand the imperfections in human nature-hence the various models of justice systems.


what role does our constitution play in our Republic?
can you answer this simple question? methinks NOT.




> The more complicated any sort of system becomes, the less stable it becomes.


I hate it when that happens..()  is my question too complex for you?

----------


## familydog

> No one points a gun at the people's representatives when they vow to adhere to the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I alluded to that already in earlier posts.  It's a high standard, that even the Founders couldn't abide by.  But that doesn't speak to anything other than the common man's inability to refrain from corruption - Dr. Paul notwithstanding.


The Constitution is not voluntary. That is not debatable. An involuntary agreement is immoral and impossible to enforce. 

You are correct. The common man is unable to refrain from corruption. That means two things: 1) the Constitution can never work since the common man will always outnumber those who wish to abide by it. 2) the common man can't be trusted to vote since they will only vote for others who are also corrupt.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> No one points a gun at the people's representatives when they vow to adhere to the Constitution.


Except a gun is pointed at the people who belong to those "representatives".

----------


## HVACTech

> Except a gun is pointed at the people who belong to those "representatives".


hello, same question for you.




> what role does our constitution play in our Republic?

----------


## fr33

> what role does our constitution play in our Republic?


Almost none and "our republic" doesn't function like a republic.

----------


## Origanalist

> hello, same question for you.


I'll answer that. It plays only the role our rulers allow it to play.

----------


## Origanalist

> Almost none and "our republic" doesn't not function like a republic.


You beat me to it.

----------


## HVACTech

> Almost none and "our republic" doesn't not function like a republic.


bingo. we have a winner. 
in a Republic. (as opposed to a Democracy) 
there is such a thing as the "rule of law" ours WAS directed at one thing and ONE thing only.

----------


## fr33

That's why it's slightly annoying when people say, "Our country is not a democracy. It's a republic!"

No it really isn't. It was supposed to be but that got thrown out the window.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## HVACTech

> That's why it's slightly annoying when people say, "Our country is not a democracy. It's a republic!"
> 
> No it really isn't. It was supposed to be but that got thrown out the window.


the democratic process, was but one of the checks and balances. friend.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> the democratic process, was but one of the checks and balances. friend.


*
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill* 
*
"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx*
*
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -- Vladimir Lenin 
"The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre
*

----------


## idiom

> Yes, it never works in practice.  You can see this by poking your figurative finger at any point in 230+ years of Constitution history you choose.  I reckon it could work in very, very small egalitarian societies cut off from the rest of the world.  These people would have to have a common history and subjective value system.  The more complicated any sort of system becomes, the less stable it becomes.
> WRT Voluntaryism, they understand the imperfections in human nature-hence the various models of justice systems.


This is the closest anyone has come to addressing why New Zealand is doing so well without a 'Constitution' put together by all wise founding fathers.

----------


## idiom

> *
> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill* 
> *
> "Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx*
> *
> "Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -- Vladimir Lenin 
> "The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin
> 
> "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre
> *


Winston was super upper class and had general contempt for humanity.

Marx was conflating socialism with a classless society.

Lenin was in reality not a fan of democracy. Watch what they do, not what they say.

And Bob, "If men are good then you don't need written contracts, and if they are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have them". FTFY Bob.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Winston was super upper class and had general contempt for humanity.
> 
> Marx was conflating socialism with a classless society.
> 
> Lenin was in reality not a fan of democracy. Watch what they do, not what they say.
> 
> And Bob, "If men are good then you don't need written contracts, and if they are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have them". FTFY Bob.


Thanks anyway, but I much prefer the original LeFevre quote, BEFORE you broke it. 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It twarn't broke.

----------


## idiom

> Thanks anyway, but I much prefer the original LeFevre quote, BEFORE you broke it. 
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It twarn't broke.


I was just pointing out that it is trite.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I was just pointing out that it is trite.


Who died and then who elected you official lexicon monitor and judge?  

The last time I checked, "truth" always trumps "trite", by at least a country mile.

I'm just pointing that out.

----------


## LibertyEagle



----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> 


Why should I protect something that was designed to restrict individual freedoms in the first place?

----------


## Vanguard101

> Why should I protect something that was designed to restrict individual freedoms in the first place?


Your statement has nothing to do with his statement.

----------


## HVACTech

> *
> "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill* 
> *
> "Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx*
> *
> "Democracy is indispensable to socialism." -- Vladimir Lenin 
> "The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin
> 
> "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -- Bob LeFevre
> *


ya know, the last time I checked, the democratic process was NOT the same thing as a democracy.

----------


## HVACTech

how many on this thread, are aware that the constitution does NOT apply to them?  that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "people"?

yes, I understand that it has been null and void since (at least) the new deal.  is that a reason to throw it in the woods?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> Your statement has nothing to do with his statement.


It has everything to do with his statement and what social contract theory defenders here have been arguing throughout this thread: "The constitution isn't flawed, it's the people!"

The Constitution isn't some magical how-to guide for running a peaceful, free society that has been corrupted by politicians.  The Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution in order to allow the State to function under what a minority of lawyers and politicians saw fit.

----------


## HVACTech

> The Constitution isn't some magical how-to guide for running a peaceful, free society that has been corrupted by politicians.  The Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution in order to allow the State to function under what a minority of lawyers and politicians saw fit.


so, we can agree as to what it is NOT.  how about what it is? 

what was it's intended purpose? hold on, mebbe we should agree on WTF it is first?

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> I understand that it has been null and void *since (at least) the new deal*.  is that a reason to throw it in the woods?


This myth of an American republic did not suddenly end in the 1930s.  Slavery, conscription, restricted "free" speech (quite an oxymoron), the income tax, and prohibition were all legal and considered constitutional under the nostalgic/romanticized United States that preceded FDR.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> ya know, the last time I checked, the democratic process was NOT the same thing as a democracy.


Do they both involve voting and the majority wins (rules)?  If not, then what significant differences do you have in mind?  Where did you last check?

----------


## HVACTech

> Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
> I understand that it has been null and void since (at least) the new deal. is that a reason to throw it in the woods?
> This myth of an American republic did not suddenly end in the 1930s. Slavery, conscription, restricted "free" speech (quite an oxymoron), the income tax, and prohibition were all legal and considered constitutional under the nostalgic/romanticized United States that preceded FDR.





> Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
> ya know, the last time I checked, the democratic process was NOT the same thing as a democracy.
> Do they both involve voting and the majority wins (rules)? If not, then what significant differences do you have in mind? Where did you last check?


ya know what? both a heat pump and a gas furnace have well, "gas" in them. 
AC and DC are both types of electricity.
how did I become a master of a vocation that cannot be mastered? 
a firm understanding of the basics.

yes, even the founders themselves had trouble adhering to the "piece of paper" they created. 
"prohibition" required an amendment. as did the income tax. 
vestiges of the original intent remained. or such would not be so.

----------


## Deborah K

> The Constitution is not voluntary. That is not debatable. An involuntary agreement is immoral and impossible to enforce.


I don't agree with that.  Please explain how we are being forced to do anything due to the Constitution?  The tyranny we are under, i.e., the police state, and the theft of our money, is not Constitutional - they are products of the subversion of the Constitution.  For example, the 16th amendment has been conveniently misused over the years (read: Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?),  much like the 1st amendment has been misused to stifle freedom of religion (ex: breaking crosses off of mountains), free speech (no more 'RedSkins' ala FCC), free assembly (we now have 'free speech zones'), and free press (which is now essentially the 4th branch of gov't).  And that's not even mentioning what this behemoth has done to the 2nd amendment...




> You are correct. The common man is unable to refrain from corruption. That means two things: 1) the Constitution can never work since the common man will always outnumber those who wish to abide by it. 2) the common man can't be trusted to vote since they will only vote for others who are also corrupt


OR, it can mean that we have a ways to go in reaching our full potential.  Just because the "noble experiment" is failing, doesn't mean we should just chuck our foundation, or that we shouldn't continue to strive to better ourselves as a people.  This also speaks to why any other system, including voluntarism, won't necessarily work either.  Man's inability to rise above the temptation of corruption will rear its ugly head no matter the system we choose.  That's not to say it isn't worth moving in that direction.  In fact, even with the existing Constitution, with the exception of the many amendments which should now be thrown out (Bill of Rights notwithstanding), voluntarism would be perfectly acceptable and allowable.  The goal, I believe, is individual happiness, and self realization.  I think that can be achieved, even with strict adherence to the Constitution.

----------


## osan

> 


In other words, the Constitution doesn't protect us at all.  Only _WE_ protect us.

We do not need a constitution.  We need the proper apprehension of the Principles of Proper Human Relations.  If one wishes to enshrine those in writing and call it a "constitution", I would warn that it may be a bad idea because with such instruments does the mind begin to shift its posture such that the individual begins to regard it as an entity unto itself.  Then comes "government", to which the lazy meaner eventually pawns of his personal responsibility.  Once that happens in the least measure, the trot downward into hell has begun.

 A vast plurality of people want what can never be: freedom provided to them reliably and perpetually by third parties.  It is the equivalent of dancing all night to the music, expecting to call the tunes, and not having to pay the band.  Mr. Cake, meet Mr. Eatitoo.  When matter and anti-matter meet, they mutually annihilate.  That is what happens to freedom when it meets with the refusal to personally maintain it.  <POOF!>  And here we are; welcome to the 21st century.  Ain't it grand?

----------


## Deborah K

Osan, do you believe that you can personally maintain freedom all on your own? Or, do you believe your freedom, and thus your happiness, is reliant upon a community?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Osan, do you believe that you can personally maintain freedom all on your own? Or, do you believe your freedom, and thus your happiness, is reliant upon a community?


I think my local church FAR more meaningfully counts as a community than the US...

----------


## osan

> intended purpose?


In the final analysis the Constitution's intended purpose is irrelevant.  What counts are the results that have been precipitated under its imprimatur.  Those results have been, by and large, deleterious on an increasing basis with respect to time.  Lysander Spooner had it bullseyed all those years ago.

People need to have a strong training in the fundamentals of proper human relations.  We have a strong training in how to be proper serfs under the will of tyrants.  This is not acceptable.  Just as the tyrants and their seemingly limitless army of useful idiots have subverted youth for endless generations, so must we now unsubvert ourselves that we may see the truth that is common to all men.  It is a small, compact, and eminently elegant truth, but its implications are not always very pleasant.  It is this fact that has empowered the tyrant through the ages.  People demand weal with the one hand and reject its cost with the other.  The tyrant understands this with great perfection and employs this weakness against the common man with amazing effect and efficiency.  The tyrant promises that which can never be.  All he demands from his fellow man is consent, and he gets it almost universally while almost never delivering on his promises.  The common man sees it, but his general state of personal corruption cements his inertia, which in turn cements his overweight butt in his easy-chair.

This is why the man who loves actual freedom is so rare and why his fight against those who would thwart his sovereign rights is likely certain to fail.  But if it is to have any hope of success, his corrupted, disease-ridden fellows must be first healed to a point where they want to fight for their own sovereign claims.  Without the desire, there is not will, and without the will there is no action.

The task is staggering in its monumentality.  I honestly cannot tell if there is so much as a snowball's chance in hell that tyranny might be rubbed from the earth for more than a brief historical moment, for that is all that men appear to have been able to achieve thus far since the rise of the first tyrant.

Achieving freedom is not the trick, for killing enough of the bad people can lead to that goal.  Holding on to it is where the magic lies precisely because people are so endlessly attracted to the corruptions that lead to their enslavement.  This small but profound truth leads me to question the intention behind the design of the human spirit.

----------


## osan

> Osan, do you believe that you can personally maintain freedom all on your own?


In the absence of Empire, mostly yes.  When the threats of whatever form and degree to one's freedoms source from single individuals, we may generally say that the ability for the average man to successfully defend against encroachment and destruction is far and away greater than when one faces groups seeking to commit some violation.




> Or, do you believe your freedom, and thus your happiness, is reliant upon a community?


This could be answered from any of several points of view.  From the purely pragmatic angle and holding all else equal, I would say that the larger a community becomes, the more dependent becomes the Individual upon it to render all aid and comfort in the preservation of his rights.  It is a mutual exchange in the very real sense that I respect your claims and you mine.  Additionally, by our mutual vigilance regarding each's rights better ensures that everyone plays nicely.  It also legitimizes everyone's claims.  Consider the opposite: I claim fundamental rights x, y, and z and expect everyone to respect them.  If I expect that when someone violates me that one of my fellows should come to my defense, I have no basis for avoiding the same responsibility from those fellows of me when they are under attack.  This should be fairly plain to any dull second grader, and yet the world is literally choking on the wad of grotesquely hypocritical adults who fail to accept this, wanting aid but refusing to render it.

So yes, the long term viability of one's freedom does indeed depend in a very direct and central way upon the willingness of the members of one's community simply because of the reality of the relative strengths of the Individual vis-à-vis the group.  A paradox there, in case you do not see it, it that the health of the group depends directly on the health of the Individual in many very real senses.  Sadly, most members of most groups appear to refuse or otherwise fail to see this.  They appear to hold a very myopically lopsided perception that tells them the group is all that matters, the Individual be damned.  This is pure mental illness and it has proven genocidally dangerous.

----------


## HVACTech

> In the final analysis the Constitution's intended purpose is irrelevant.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

that seems pretty darn clear to me. 

the constitution did NOT fail the people, the people failed the constitution. 
let me explain, we are a republic. (democracy is illegal here) china, is a republic. so was the USSR.
do you see where I am going with this? 
in a republic, the "rule of law" can be based on ANYTHING. today, we are a crony republic. why?

because today, people do not even know what the constitution IS. much less what it's intent was. 

I hope I wrote that in a constructive, non belligerent manner.
peace.

----------


## familydog

> I don't agree with that.  Please explain how we are being forced to do anything due to the Constitution?  The tyranny we are under, i.e., the police state, and the theft of our money, is not Constitutional - they are products of the subversion of the Constitution.  For example, the 16th amendment has been conveniently misused over the years (read: Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?),  much like the 1st amendment has been misused to stifle freedom of religion (ex: breaking crosses off of mountains), free speech (no more 'RedSkins' ala FCC), free assembly (we now have 'free speech zones'), and free press (which is now essentially the 4th branch of gov't).  And that's not even mentioning what this behemoth has done to the 2nd amendment...


Article 1, Section 8 is a positive grant of powers to the federal government. There are eighteen grants that I have to pay for and live by. I never voluntarily agreed to any of them. 

Who subverted the Constitution? Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a check on Congress and the President? The court is the worst offender of violating the Constitution. We can go all the way back to 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison to find the Supreme Court creating new powers for itself. 




> OR, it can mean that we have a ways to go in reaching our full potential.  Just because the "noble experiment" is failing, doesn't mean we should just chuck our foundation, or that we shouldn't continue to strive to better ourselves as a people.  This also speaks to why any other system, including voluntarism, won't necessarily work either.  Man's inability to rise above the temptation of corruption will rear its ugly head no matter the system we choose.  That's not to say it isn't worth moving in that direction.  In fact, even with the existing Constitution, with the exception of the many amendments which should now be thrown out (Bill of Rights notwithstanding), voluntarism would be perfectly acceptable and allowable.  The goal, I believe, is individual happiness, and self realization.  I think that can be achieved, even with strict adherence to the Constitution.


How much further do "we" need to go? How long will it take? The country has regressed by leaps and bounds since the signing of the Constitution. That's quite a hole you need to climb out of. Again, immediately after the signing, the Constitution was being violated. It's baffling that I should support a system that has failed since day one and only gotten worse over 200 years. 

Have you ever owned or managed a business? I currently do both with two different businesses. Let's say you implement a new set of rules and regulations for your business. Several years later you find that your business is losing money hand over fist. What you're doing is blaming the employees and customers for not understanding or following the new guidelines. What I am doing is questioning the policies themselves. 

Again, there are only three ways to understand this:

1) If human beings are fundamentally corrupt, we can't have a government. The government will be controlled by corrupt human beings.
2)If human beings are inherently good, we don't need a government.
3) If only some human beings are corrupt, we can't have a government. The corrupt will seize control of the government for their own nefarious purposes and enslave the uncorrupted.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think my local church FAR more meaningfully counts as a community than the US...


And that is as it should be.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Amendment X
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
> 
> that seems pretty darn clear to me. 
> 
> the constitution did NOT fail the people, the people failed the constitution. 
> let me explain, we are a republic. (democracy is illegal here) china, is a republic. so was the USSR.
> do you see where I am going with this? 
> ...


And the vast majority of Amerikan children are schooled where?

http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com.../DDDoA.sml.pdf

----------


## osan

> Amendment X
> 
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Not sure of your point here, but I will say that the 10A is crap.  The real meat of the BoR lies in the 2A and 9A.  The rest take a distant back seat to those.




> that seems pretty darn clear to me.


Yes and no.  "Or to the people" guarantees the Individual nothing because "the people" is an undefined term.  The failure to define jargon is a major failing in the design and construction of the Constitution.  Because of the absence of definition, Theye who are in power are at their leisure to lend whatever meaning to the term that may suit them at any given moment.  This is precisely what Theye do, over and over again, and as the average man plummets ever more deeply into the black abyss of his ignorance, the tyrant is able to embark upon ever bolder semantic excursions, which they also do endlessly.  The mean man does absolutely nothing of substance to correct this.

The use of "or" leaves the question of who, exactly, retains those unenumerated rights wide open and up for grabs.  Very poor use of logical sentence structure and I would be surprised to find that it was done from ignorance.  That doesn't leave much wiggle room for inferences.  The individual is small.  The "state" is large.  In a one-on-one, the individual usually loses.  These days, they usually end up dead as stone.




> the constitution did NOT fail the people, the people failed the constitution.


We agree, but I maintain that the design spec of the document is sadly lacking in robust character, largely due to the gross absence of specificity.  It may be possible that the Framers were unable to do a better job at that time for any of a number of understandable reasons.  But we now have the benefit of 200++ years experience in observing the weaknesses of the instrument.  Ideally, the best thing we could do is rewrite the document to correct the deficiencies in the extant work.  Well, ideally we would be anarchic, but the practical realities of a dangerous and technologically-enabled world preclude this option for any people wishing to avoid either being slaughtered or enslaved by one of their covetous neighbors.

As I have mentioned in years past, I wrote my own constitution about 25 years ago as an academic exercise.  It is a quantum leap beyond what we now have, but one thing that became quickly apparent to me was that the instrument itself is nothing.  It does nothing, in sé, save to serve as a framework, guide, and reminder for good people on the precepts of proper human relations and the practice of self-governance.




> let me explain, we are a republic. (democracy is illegal here) china, is a republic. so was the USSR.
> do you see where I am going with this? 
> in a republic, the "rule of law" can be based on ANYTHING.


Which is precisely why the broadly touted concept of "rule of law" is nothing better than rank and childish nonsense for its vagary.




> because today, people do not even know what the constitution IS. much less what it's intent was.


Here we agree completely.

----------


## Deborah K

> Article 1, Section 8 is a positive grant of powers to the federal government. There are eighteen grants that I have to pay for and live by. I never voluntarily agreed to any of them. 
> 
> Who subverted the Constitution? Isn't the Supreme Court suppose to be a check on Congress and the President? The court is the worst offender of violating the Constitution. We can go all the way back to 1803 with Marbury vs. Madison to find the Supreme Court creating new powers for itself.


I would agree that the SCOTUS has been the biggest perpetrator of subverting the Constitution with their UN -constitutional interpretations.  As to your 18 grants you must pay for and live by, are you aware of how many laws the Amish are exempt from, solely based on their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion?




> How much further do "we" need to go? How long will it take? The country has regressed by leaps and bounds since the signing of the Constitution. That's quite a hole you need to climb out of. Again, immediately after the signing, the Constitution was being violated. It's baffling that I should support a system that has failed since day one and only gotten worse over 200 years.


'Supporting this system' is not the same thing as supporting the Constitution. This system no longer represents its foundation. How long will it take?  I can't answer that except to say that corruption is a moral defect, how do you eradicate moral defects?  The only hope we have is through appealing to one's intelligence, and sense of reason. That might be done through education and informing, and enlightening, although total eradication of moral defects is a very lofty goal.




> Have you ever owned or managed a business? I currently do both with two different businesses. Let's say you implement a new set of rules and regulations for your business. Several years later you find that your business is losing money hand over fist. What you're doing is blaming the employees and customers for not understanding or following the new guidelines. What I am doing is questioning the policies themselves.


Well, first of all, you'll know before several years go by, and a lot of money loss, if your policies are a failure.  And if they are, the goal should be to amend them until they work.  And yes, I have owned and managed several businesses.  




> Again, there are only three ways to understand this:
> 
> 1) If human beings are fundamentally corrupt, we can't have a government. The government will be controlled by corrupt human beings.
> 2)If human beings are inherently good, we don't need a government.
> 3) If only some human beings are corrupt, we can't have a government. The corrupt will seize control of the government for their own nefarious purposes and enslave the uncorrupted


Sorry but I view this as a gross oversimplification.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why should I protect something that was designed to restrict individual freedoms in the first place?


Would you mind referring me to the sources that have you concluding that the founders chucked the AoC for the Constitution, not because the AoC failed its intended purpose, but because there was a concerted plot to enslave the new nation?

----------


## familydog

> I would agree that the SCOTUS has been the biggest perpetrator of subverting the Constitution with their UN -constitutional interpretations.  As to your 18 grants you must pay for and live by, are you aware of how many laws the Amish are exempt from, solely based on their 1st amendment right to freedom of religion?


I am not exempt from paying interest on state debt. I am not exempt from the regulation of interstate commerce. I am not exempt from the Post Office. I am not exempt from paying for the military. The Bill of Rights do nothing to exempt from Article 1, Section 8. I do not understand what you are trying to say.




> 'Supporting this system' is not the same thing as supporting the Constitution. This system no longer represents its foundation. How long will it take?  I can't answer that except to say that corruption is a moral defect, how do you eradicate moral defects?  The only hope we have is through appealing to one's intelligence, and sense of reason. That might be done through education and informing, and enlightening, although total eradication of moral defects is a very lofty goal.


Enlightenment thinkers started appealing to reason and evidence several hundred years ago. If all we needed to do was educate and inform, then we would be living in a completely different world by now.




> Well, first of all, you'll know before several years go by, and a lot of money loss, if your policies are a failure.  And if they are, the goal should be to amend them until they work.


We've had evidence since...well, immediately after the Constitution was signed that it didn't work to restrain the state. It's only gotten worse. Yet we see people continue to say it will work.




> Sorry but I view this as a gross oversimplification.


Perhaps you could provide an analysis on why it is an oversimplification.

----------


## HVACTech

> Perhaps you could provide an analysis on why it is an oversimplification.


or, perhaps, you could do your own frickin homework?

what IS the constitution? why was it created in the first place?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> or, perhaps, you could do your own frickin homework?
> 
> what IS the constitution? why was it created in the first place?


http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/07/rp_7_5.pdf

----------


## robert68

..

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Would you mind referring me to the sources that have you concluding that the founders chucked the AoC for the Constitution, not because the AoC failed its intended purpose, but because there was a concerted plot to enslave the new nation?


http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf

----------


## familydog

> or, perhaps, you could do your own frickin homework?
> 
> what IS the constitution? why was it created in the first place?


Um, homework on what?

I find it interesting when I ask a question and people tell me to go find out for myself. It says a lot.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/an...listpapers.pdf


Also, http://smile.amazon.com/Hamiltons-Cu...lton%27s+curse

----------

