# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Our US Constitution is NOT a social contract.

## HVACTech

our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people.  therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you? 
you would not. 

it's purpose and function was to Unite The States. it was a contract between the states and the fedgov. that's it. 
social contracts DO require Consent, that is not available or needed at this level. 
it's expressed purpose was to act as a shield for the people. and as a referee between the states. 

this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.  
"consent" requires LOCAL consent. not national.
the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.

YES. the US Constitution is an anti-state document. 
it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

----------


## Danke

Fishing for trolls I see.  You bored?

----------


## HVACTech

> Fishing for trolls I see.  You bored?


yah. a good friend on mine. (was a basic neocon) is taking the courses at Hillsdale college. 

http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution...ampaign=con101

he is now on the 2nd level.. and we talk about it daily.
 check this out dude, the education that we got back in the day, is holding up pretty darn good. 
ceptin of course for that "anti-federalist" guy.  I KNOW what that means now...

this site has anti-constitution gatekeepers....
and in case you have not noticed, they promote open rebellion as the ONLY just option.

I am here to PROMOTE and explain the US Constitution.
for that is what Dr Paul did for us.

----------


## fr33

> this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and *local*.
> *"consent" requires LOCAL consent.* not national.
> the states are bound by the same rules, (based on natural law.) that the fedgov is bound by.


What does "local" mean to you? Did you sign up for whatever "local" means? Did I?

----------


## HVACTech

> What does "local" mean to you? Did you sign up for whatever "local" means? Did I?


can you push "consent" lower than that? 

pontificate thus.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Fishing for trolls I see.  You bored?


He is a troll, though...

----------


## mrsat_98

Hope this helps.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell*

----------


## fisharmor

> it is a tool that WE the people can use to reign in our out of control fedgov.

----------


## Origanalist

///

----------


## Ender

> *"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell*


Yep- my thoughts exactly.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people.  therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
> why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you? 
> you would not. 
> 
> it's purpose and function was to Unite The States. it was a contract between the states and the fedgov. that's it. 
> social contracts DO require Consent, that is not available or needed at this level. 
> it's expressed purpose was to act as a shield for the people. and as a referee between the states. 
> 
> this is why there are 3 levels of "government" in our country. federal, state and local.  
> ...


lol

And "the states" are...?

I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.

They're not.  They're figments of your imagination.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *"The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on. The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it at least had the advantage of spelling out what the government could not do. In a rather ingenious twist, even that has been perverted: it is now seen as a mandate for the federal government to tell lower orders of government what they cannot do, meaning that it ends up being a force for centralization. This is such a tragedy. If Patrick Henry could see what became of it, I'm sure he never would have tolerated it. The same might be true of Hamilton, for that matter. So long as we are talking about founding documents, the one that really deserves more attention is the Declaration of Independence. Now here is an inspiring document that shows us where we should go in the future!" -- Lew Rockwell*






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

----------


## HVACTech

> Yep- my thoughts exactly.


c'mon guys, did any of you read the first sentence? 




> The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today.


he is stating that we do not have the constitution today. and he is correct. 




> It only squeaked through once the Bill of Rights was tacked on.




the constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1789. the bill of rights was added in 1791.

----------


## HVACTech

> lol
> 
> And "the states" are...?
> 
> I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.
> 
> They're not.  They're figments of your imagination.


I understand the meaning of the word state. 




> Changes of state are physical changes in matter. They are reversible changes that do not involve changes in matter's chemical makeup or chemical properties. Common changes of state include melting, freezing, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and vaporization.


and yes, I am in a Texas state of mind. 
(I used the word in a sentence)

perhaps you could share your double ought secret meaning of this word?

----------


## A Son of Liberty



----------


## HVACTech

> 


please show me SOMETHING! ANYTHING! that you think applies to the people in the 
US Constitution.
 this question excludes the other two documents.

----------


## HVACTech

> 


ya got me! that is a state alright!

----------


## Ronin Truth

> c'mon guys, did any of you read the first sentence? 
> 
> 
> 
> he is stating that we do not have the constitution today. and he is correct. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the constitution of 1787 was ratified in 1789. the bill of rights was added in 1791.


Ratification by some was contingent on a Bill of Rights being added.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> please show me SOMETHING! ANYTHING! that you think applies to the people in the 
> US Constitution.


The criminalization of counterfeiting and piracy.
The definition of treason.
The prohibition of slavery.
The granting of authority to Congress to enact patent and copyright laws.
The grant of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over D.C. and federal enclaves.

Shall I go on, or do you think that the people are somehow free to pass funny money, own slaves, infringe copyrights, or do anything they want in D.C.?

----------


## ProIndividual

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not. 




> In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours". 

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Illegitimate

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Every form of state is based upon a legal theory.* That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not. 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).
> 
> I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours". 
> 
> Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.
> ...


It ought to be so, but US Constitutional statism is not.  I dedicated a thread some months ago to requesting a sound legal theory from Constituitonalists-crickets.

----------


## ProIndividual

> It ought to be so, but US Constitutional statism is not.  I dedicated a thread some months ago to requesting a sound legal theory from Constituitonalists-crickets.


I didn't mean to say SOUND legal theory, only a legal theory. If they had no legal theory (social contract theory) they'd not think it legitimate. And if they were amoralists (those egoists who deny ethics even exist) they'd not have any legal theory, as all legal theories are necessarily preceded by ethical theories. 

The thread I started on the social contract goes into why the legal theory they base the state's legitimacy on is indeed unsound. But it is a legal theory, and that legal theory is based on an ethical theory...neither is sound, is the problem.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

The Constitution is indeed based on social contract theory. The consolidation of power was, and is, predictable.

You accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things described in a 200 year old document. That is better than those who accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things which aren't described in the Constitution, I suppose, but regardless your logic is flawed.

----------


## HVACTech

> Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. *That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory.* The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not. 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).
> 
> I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours". 
> 
> Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.
> ...





> That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". *So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract*...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory


thank you, 

now, lets move on to the meaning of the word "STATE"  shall we?   
"I am in a Texas state of mind". 

we have a "state" called Virginia. was this "state" always known thusly? no, it was NOT.
before it became the "state" of Virginia, it was probably in another state. or, perhaps not in any state at all. (wilderness) 

as an HVACTech, I DO know the meaning of the word "state"  




> Changes of state are physical changes in matter. They are reversible changes that do not involve changes in matter's chemical makeup or chemical properties. Common changes of state include melting, freezing, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and vaporization.


I am STILL waiting for the double ought secret meaning of this word for you.
please enlighten me sir.

----------


## HVACTech

> The criminalization of counterfeiting and piracy.
> The definition of treason.
> The prohibition of slavery.
> The granting of authority to Congress to enact patent and copyright laws.
> The grant of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over D.C. and federal enclaves.
> 
> Shall I go on, or do you think that the people are somehow free to pass funny money, own slaves, infringe copyrights, or do anything they want in D.C.?


most of what you speak of is as a result of poor amendments. 
most ALL of the amendments past the first 12 are in fact, unconstitutional.

and sir, something that "affects" the people,
 is NOT the same as something that "applies" to the people.

----------


## HVACTech

> The Constitution is indeed based on social contract theory. The consolidation of power was, and is, predictable.
> 
> You accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things described in a 200 year old document. That is better than those who accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things *which aren't described in the Constitution*, I suppose, but regardless your logic is flawed.


darn, and I thought you were one of the good ones...

you are an anti-federalist and desire a "document" (contract) that is NOT 200 years old?   

so, you. want a new FRESH document? or NO document (contract) at all?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> darn, and I thought you were one of the good ones...
> 
> you are an anti-federalist and desire a "document" (contract) that is NOT 200 years old?   
> 
> so, you. want a new FRESH document? or NO document (contract) at all?


I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.
> 
> That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.
> 
> It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.


+megarep.  Preach on, brother!

----------


## HVACTech

> I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.
> 
> *That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.*
> 
> It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.


is this what you tell new members who join the site? is that your expressed purpose for being here?
to bash them with your rep power?  
I wager that runs a lot of them off. 
oh, look, and it would seem another high ranking member has joined the fray. right below this post. 

both of you do not support this website either financially or in spirit.
imagine that!

----------


## HVACTech

> +megarep.  Preach on, brother!


7 years and over 48 thousand posts....  
heck, I bet even Ron Paul himself would admire your tenacity in running off people trying to learn about the Constitution.
or Ron Paul.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> is this what you tell new members who join the site? is that your expressed purpose for being here?
> to bash them with your rep power?  
> I wager that runs a lot of them off. 
> oh, look, and it would seem another high ranking member has joined the fray. right below this post. 
> 
> both of you do not support this website either financially or in spirit.
> imagine that!


The hell are you babbling about?

I only use the rep system to save from hassling with a PM. The only time I've ever neg repped you was because you wrote an incoherent rant of sorts (imagine that) while consistently acting like an arrogant ass. That had to have been months ago so I don't know why you're still bothered by it.

Eta: You aren't even on the list. Just for clarity's sake, it goes back to December 21 (It's been at least five months since I'd neg repped  you). I should neg rep you now for your pathetic dishonesty.

----------


## HVACTech

> The hell are you babbling about?
> 
> I only use the rep system to save from hassling with a PM. The only time I've ever neg repped you was because you wrote an incoherent rant of sorts (imagine that) while consistently acting like an arrogant ass. That had to have been months ago so I don't know why you're still bothered by it.


I was speaking in reference to new members.




> Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
> I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.
> 
> *That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.*
> 
> It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.


^^^this post indicates that you are an anti-federalist.  (you know what that means..right?)^^^
and then at the bottom of this very page..




> RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul *but dedicated to his mission*.


when did you first start to HATE the Constitution?  3 yrs and 12 thousand posts....
did you learn to hate it here?
this thread WAS about how the Constitution is NOT a social contract.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I was speaking in reference to new members.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^this post indicates that you are an anti-federalist.  (you know what that means..right?)^^^
> and then at the bottom of this very page..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ron Paul has stated that he well may have been an Anti-federalist.

I find it amusing that someone who cannot even post in sentences has the audacity to arrogantly ask rhetorical questions. Quit inhaling the Freon, ffs.

----------


## Ender

> I was speaking in reference to new members.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^this post indicates that you are an anti-federalist.  (you know what that means..right?)^^^
> and then at the bottom of this very page..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do YOU know what the anti-federalists were? They were correct.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/...ts-were-right/

The Constitution was a coup for the Hamiltonians and big government. Worked pretty good, I'd say.

----------


## TheTexan

> I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.


I think a lot of people, including myself, would recognize the preamble




Personally though I think this one's better.. song is a *lot* catchier IMO

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Do YOU know what the anti-federalists were? They were correct.
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/...ts-were-right/
> 
> The Constitution was a coup for the Hamiltonians and big government. Worked pretty good, I'd say.


+rep

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The hell are you babbling about?
> 
> I only use the rep system to save from hassling with a PM. The only time I've ever neg repped you was because you wrote an incoherent rant of sorts (imagine that) while consistently acting like an arrogant ass. That had to have been months ago so I don't know why you're still bothered by it.
> 
> Eta: You aren't even on the list. Just for clarity's sake, it goes back to December 21 (It's been at least five months since I'd neg repped  you). I should neg rep you now for your pathetic dishonesty.


Someone plz +rep this guy^^  I'm out of ammo.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> most of what you speak of is as a result of poor amendments.


The only thing I listed that resulted from an amendment was the prohibition of slavery.  All the rest were in the original constitution.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> when did you first start to HATE the Constitution?  3 yrs and 12 thousand posts....
> did you learn to hate it here?
> this thread WAS about how the Constitution is NOT a social contract.


I believe I started to see through the myth of the Constitution's greatness right around the time I read it. Who Killed the Constitution by Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman was eye opening with regards to the blatant disregard/manipulation of the words within it as well as the disregard for the original intent of the Framers. No Treason by Lysander Spooner is indispensable to anyone who cares about freedom.

I do not hate the Constitution. I simply do not worship it as Christ reincarnate.

We've discussed this a few times actually. In fact, I think you still have not responded to many of the few thousand word posts I've made on the subject.

----------


## ProIndividual

A state is a territorially-based coercive monopoly on the (claimed) legal use of violence against non-victimizers. That is a bit detailed, given most people just say "a geographically-defined monopoly on the use of violence", but that shorter description isn't quite right, even if more popular. A monopoly can be non-coercive (Austrian economics is instructive here as to the difference between consumer-created monopoly and a coercive monopoly - which I link to in the other thread I linked you to), and the state doesn't actually hold a monopoly on the use of violence (only the legal use of it against non-victimizers, as anyone can basically use self defense on an individual level). So I feel it necessary to be more specific. A state is a territorially-based coercive monopoly on the (claimed) legal use of violence against non-victimizers. This how they justify taxing people who haven't first created a victim, drug wars that attack non-victimizers, etc.

For your info..."state" means "compulsory government" generally, whereas "State" means political structures like Texas and Ohio. It's similar to how "libertarian" means someone who subscribes to the philosophy of libertarianism, while "Libertarian" means someone who is in the Libertarian Party. I think that was your confusion with how I used the term "state".

Notice also, the state when coupled with taxation essentially becomes indistinguishable from a mafia coupled with protection racket. Both are territorially-based coercive monopolies on the use of violence against non-victimizers. The state merely differs in that it is strong enough relative to its competing crime families to declare itself legal, and all competitors illegal. Both fund themselves via extortion...the state just uses euphemisms like "taxation" for what is actually extortion, and "preemptive war" for what is actually mass murder. But both are the same type of entity, and both do functionally the same things...they threaten you with violence as a consumer to pay them for a service you may or may not want, like, or use - and if you refuse to pay, or try to offer consumers an alternative choice in provision of the their services in the same territory, it is them you will need protection from (hence, a protection racket). Both are not very transparent, and therefore not very accountable, and both are creating higher than market-level prices and lower than market-level quality of service than otherwise would exist in an open, competitive, and free market for their services...which is the logical consequence of any coercive monopoly, monopsony, or cartel. 

The only real difference is the relative (to other mafias) strength of the state makes it able to declare its crimes "legal" and all other competitors "illegal". Then it sets up brainwashing camps called "public schools/state education requirements on private schools" to make children learn to worship the state as a god, in a cult called nationalism. This becomes the religion of statism, and the statists become the cultists. Every mafia wishes they could declare their crimes "legal", and outlaw all competition, while brainwashing children to love the mafia and view taxes as "the cost of civilization". They'd love to brainwash kids who later become adults that this form of slavery is actually "liberty", "freedom", "civilized society", and "justice". It's a fantastic and lucrative scam.

----------


## HVACTech

> Do YOU know what the anti-federalists were? They were correct.
> 
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/...ts-were-right/
> 
> The Constitution was a coup for the Hamiltonians and big government. Worked pretty good, I'd say.


yes, I do.  from your article.




> The Anti-federalists were right. *We don’t need to return to the government of the Framers of the Constitution*, we need to return to the government that the Framers destroyed. And furthermore, Constitution or no Constitution: The centralization of power is always a great evil.


YES! the anti-federalist are against the constitution! just like you!

have YOU read the constitution? if so, can you say that it was followed? 

why are the anti-federalist RIGHT about another contract (the 1st constitution).... if the contract in question (the 2nd constitution) was NOT followed? 

I am a contractor,  if I violate a contract, is it the contracts fault? 
it is SILLY to argue that the contract failed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I am a contractor,  if I violate a contract, is it the contracts fault? 
> it is SILLY to argue that the contract failed.


If you use loopholes and poorly constructed meanings and deliberate wordings in the contract to defraud somebody then yes, the poorly written contract certainly has some level of blame.

That's why the Anti Feds insisted on a clear bill of rights, because they understood that the weasel words and amibigious phrasing *would* allow a federal monster to arise.

----------


## HVACTech

> I believe I started to *see through the myth of the Constitution's greatness* right around the time I read it. Who Killed the Constitution by Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman was eye opening *with regards to the blatant disregard/manipulation of the words within it as well as the disregard for the original intent of the Framers.* No Treason by Lysander Spooner is indispensable to anyone who cares about freedom.
> 
> I do not hate the Constitution. I simply do not worship it as Christ reincarnate.
> 
> We've discussed this a few times actually. In fact, I think you still have not responded to many of the few thousand word posts I've made on the subject.


I bolded some conflicting thoughts.




> the blatant disregard/manipulation of the words within it


we seem to agree that it has been blatantly, disregarded and ignored.
were we differ. is that I blame the "people" you blame the document, for this agreed upon error. 

one person suggested that the word "we" in the opening sentence, made it a social contract.   

"we the people" even today, have the power to FORCE the changes that we wish to see happen, all we have to do, is the send the right people there to do it. 
we are getting the government that we deserve.

both Ron Paul and Rand Paul believe that the constitution that we have now... offers us the best chance to avoid violence. 
you, on the other hand. 




> I believe I started to see through the myth of the Constitution's greatness right around the time I read it


I still believe in Ron Paul, Rand Paul AND the constitution. 
you do NOT.

therefore, YOU are here to cause trouble and give me grief..

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If you use loopholes and poorly constructed meanings and deliberate wordings in the contract to defraud somebody then yes, the poorly written contract certainly has some level of blame.
> 
> That's why the Anti Feds insisted on a clear bill of rights, because they understood that the weasel words and amibious phrasing *would* allow a federal monster to arise.


+rep

----------


## HVACTech

> If you use loopholes and poorly constructed meanings and deliberate wordings in the contract to defraud somebody then yes, the poorly written contract certainly has some level of blame.
> 
> That's why the Anti Feds insisted on a clear bill of rights, because they understood that the weasel words and amibious phrasing *would* allow a federal monster to arise.


this is where we disagree. 



> If you use loopholes and poorly constructed meanings and deliberate wordings in the contract to defraud somebody then yes, the poorly written contract certainly has some level of blame.


NO! the fault is STILL on me.  

were the articles of confederation that you wish to divert the conversation towards...
the "iron clad" document that you venerate? 

was it in fact inviolate?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> this is where we disagree. 
> 
> NO! the fault is STILL on me.  
> 
> were the articles of confederation that you wish to divert the conversation towards...
> 
> the "iron clad" document that you venerate? 
> 
> was it in fact inviolate?


First of all I don't think I mentioned the AoC once in this thread.

Second, of course not, if one is bound and determined to break a contract, then they will do so.

But it is *easier* to do so if the contract is fatally flawed from the outset to make it easy for the power hungry and corrupt to bring about a monster that we are dealing with now.

The only thing maintaining even a shred of liberty in this country is the fact that the BoR is so clearly worded it is much harder to circumvent.

Instead of bashing the Anti Federalists for some strange reason, you should be thanking them for having the foresight to demand the BoR.

----------


## HVACTech

> First of all I don't think I mentioned the AoC once in this thread.
> 
> Second, of course not, if one is bound and determined to break a contract, then they will do so.
> 
> But it is *easier* to do so if the contract is fatally flawed from the outset to make it easy for the power hungry and corrupt to bring about a monster that we are dealing with now.
> 
> The only thing maintaining even a shred of liberty in this country is the fact that* the BoR is so clearly worded* it is much harder to circumvent.
> 
> Instead of bashing the Anti Federalists for some strange reason, you should be thanking them for having the foresight to demand the BoR.


all I have stated is that the anti-federalists. were in FACT. AGAINST the 2nd constitution.
seems that you are also not a big supporter of the AoC either.   uh, OK.  

can we agree, that the BOR, is a compilation of "Natural rights" given to us by our creator? yes? 
so, IF they were SO frickin clear...  why were the 9th and 10th added?

----------


## HVACTech

> +rep


WITHOUT the BOR, its purpose and intent would have been clear.

the addition of the BOR opened the door to tyranny.

----------


## erowe1

> our US Constitution does NOT apply to the people.  therefore it does NOT require their "consent"
> why would you need to consent to something that does not apply to you? 
> you would not.


You are correct that the US Constitution does not have the consent of the people. But it claims to in its opening words.

I am glad to see that you rightfully recognize that as propaganda.

----------


## erowe1

> WITHOUT the BOR, its purpose and intent would have been clear.
> 
> the addition of the BOR opened the door to tyranny.


So did Article I Section 8, and many other places.

----------


## otherone

> You are correct that the US Constitution does not have the consent of the people. But it claims to in its opening words.
> 
> I am glad to see that you rightfully recognize that as propaganda.


_The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody._
Lysander Spooner

----------


## HVACTech

> So did Article I Section 8, and many other places.


dude, the BOR was "tacked" onto the 2nd Constitution. and was NOT central to or even involved in it's passage.

the BOR opened the door for it to be "amended"  get it?  
prior to the BOR, it ONLY pertained to and restricted the fedgov. 

you would know these things IF you were not so busy $#@!ing with people who SUPPORT and defend our constitution. 
I did NOT have to take an oath to do this. 

AF does not even support the Aoc. just what does he stand for then?

----------


## erowe1

> the BOR opened the door for it to be "amended"  get it?


But the Constitution already opened the door to tyranny without that.

----------


## HVACTech

> _The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody._
> Lysander Spooner


stunningly profound dude.

it was the "states" pontificating via their representatives who brokered this deal. 
this is NOT good enough for you, you require an "act of the whole people" 
umm, there IS a word for that requirement.
(it starts with a "D")

----------


## HVACTech

> But the Constitution already opened the door to tyranny without that.


yes, by it's very existence it recognized the "state" as something necessary.

I therefore bow my head in shame to YOUR profound wisdom and detailed understanding of the meaning of the word "state" 

were I ONLY able to wrap my meager mind around this word. I would understand.

----------


## otherone

> stunningly profound dude.
> 
> it was the "states" pontificating via their representatives who brokered this deal. 
> this is NOT good enough for you, you require an "act of the whole people" 
> umm, there IS a word for that requirement.
> (it starts with a "D")


No.  I believe that individuals should be free to associate as they choose.  It's called "freedom".  Anything less is "tyranny", no matter the percentage that approves.

_All governments, the worst on earth, and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them._
Lysander Spooner

----------


## TheTexan

> That's why the Anti Feds insisted on a clear bill of rights, because they understood that the weasel words and amibigious phrasing *would* allow a federal monster to arise.


Yes, it's a good thing they did, or our right to hunt and shoot cans would have been severely infringed, otherwise.

----------


## HVACTech

> No.  I believe that individuals should be free to associate as they choose.  It's called "freedom".  Anything less is "tyranny", no matter the percentage that approves.
> 
> _All governments, the worst on earth, and the most tyrannical on earth, are free governments to that portion of the people who voluntarily support them._
> Lysander Spooner


yet ANOTHER profound quote!
 Lysander really should have used the word "state" instead of government, don't you agree? 

not even an HVAC/R tech is able to understand THAT word!

I agree and bow my head in shame to your wisdom, ONLY 100% democracy with FULL compliance to vote is reasonable. 
before we do ANYTHING, we must FORCE 100% of the people to provide "consent".

there is NO other path comrade.

----------


## TheTexan

> I agree and bow my head in shame to your wisdom, ONLY 100% democracy with FULL compliance to vote is reasonable. 
> before we do ANYTHING, we must FORCE 100% of the people to provide "consent".


This would be great, especially if they are forced to watch the debates on FOX/CNN so that they can be informed voters like you and I

----------


## otherone

> ONLY 100% democracy with FULL compliance to vote is reasonable. 
> before we do ANYTHING, we must FORCE 100% of the people to provide "consent".
> 
> there is NO other path comrade.


_One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will._
Lysander Spooner

----------


## HVACTech

> _One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a government is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will._
> Lysander Spooner


thats complicated dude. complicated stuff befuddles me.   

so. 
we MUST have full "consent"  BUT, if requiring "consent" involves the use of force, it is bad... right?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> all I have stated is that the anti-federalists. were in FACT. AGAINST the 2nd constitution.


Of course they were, why do you keep belabouring the obvious?




> seems that you are also not a big supporter of the AoC either.   uh, OK.


All I said was I never mentioned it in this thread.




> can we agree, that the BOR, is a compilation of "Natural rights" given to us by our creator? yes? 
> 
> so, IF they were SO frickin clear...  why were the 9th and 10th added?


So that, down the road, other rights, not specifically mentioned but that exist, could not be infringed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> WITHOUT the BOR, its purpose and intent would have been clear.
> 
> the addition of the BOR opened the door to tyranny.


Show me in the body of the constitution where it prohibits the federal government from passing a law that says all persons must attend church service.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> dude, the BOR was "tacked" onto the 2nd Constitution. and was NOT central to or even involved in it's passage.


Of course it was.

Had the BoR not been added, the Anti Feds would have not have agreed to ratification.




> the BOR opened the door for it to be "amended"  get it?  
> prior to the BOR, it ONLY pertained to and restricted the fedgov.


The Amendment process is in the body of the constitution.




> you would know these things IF you were not so busy $#@!ing with people who SUPPORT and defend our constitution. 
> 
> I did NOT have to take an oath to do this.


Nobody is $#@!ing with anybody.

You're just wrong.




> AF does not even support the Aoc. just what does he stand for then?


Freedom.

We don't have it right now.

So I have to look at the reasons *why*.

And the *first* place I'm going to look is the founding document, the supreme law of the land, that exists, specifically "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" and determ ine to the best of my ability how and where it failed.

----------


## HVACTech

> Show me in the body of the constitution where it prohibits the federal government from passing a law that says all persons must attend church service.


are you familiar with the term "enumerated powers"
why sir, did it HAVE to be "amended" to allow for the taxation of the people? or the prohibition of alcohol?  

the founders turned the table on YOUR argument, not me sir.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> are you familiar with the term "enumerated powers"
> why sir, did it HAVE to be "amended" to allow for the taxation of the people? or the prohibition of alcohol?  
> 
> the founders turned the table on YOUR argument, not me sir.


Clearly, they did not *have* to amend the constitution to do so.

For whatever reason, it was considered more expedient at the time.

Show me the amendment that prohibits marijuana.

Or the one that prohibits private ownership of newly built automatic weapons.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> are you familiar with the term "enumerated powers"
> why sir, did it HAVE to be "amended" to allow for the taxation of the people? or the prohibition of alcohol?  
> 
> the founders turned the table on YOUR argument, not me sir.


Clearly, they did not *have* to amend the constitution to do so.

For whatever reason, it was considered more expedient at the time.

Show me the amendment that prohibits marijuana.

Or the one that prohibits private ownership of newly built automatic weapons.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course it was.
> 
> Had the BoR not been added, the Anti Feds would have not have agreed to ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> The Amendment process is in the body of the constitution.
> 
> 
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.


Someone +rep this guy, plz^^

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> And the *first* place I'm going to look is the founding document, the supreme law of the land, that exists, specifically "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" and determ ine to the best of my ability how and where it failed.


The failure is in the First Amendments not describing the purpose of free speech as being to create the unity needed to alter or abolish.

That failure led to our failure to unify adequately to keep the states vigilante to application of constitutional limits upon the federal government.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Show me in the body of the constitution where it prohibits the federal government from passing a law that says all persons must attend church service.


The First Amendment.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> why sir, did it HAVE to be "amended" to allow for the taxation of the people?


It didn't.  The power to tax has always been in the Constitution (I.8.1).

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The First Amendment.


Yes, exactly.

The argument was that, according to some, the BoR was unneeded.

So I want to see where it says, *specifically*, in the body of the document, that government is prohibited from passing such a law.

Of course, no one will be able to post that, because it does not exist.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Smedley Darlington Butler*

Author of "War is a Racket", two time Medal of Honor awardee, most decorated Marine at the time, and my great Uncle.

So now you know where I get it from.

----------


## TheTexan

> Show me in the body of the constitution where it prohibits the federal government from passing a law that says all persons must attend church service.


Is it ok if you dont call it church, and only require kids to attend

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I bolded some conflicting thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> we seem to agree that it has been blatantly, disregarded and ignored.
> were we differ. is that I blame the "people" you blame the document, for this agreed upon error. 
> 
> one person suggested that the word "we" in the opening sentence, made it a social contract.   
> 
> ...


I don't deserve the ill consequences from half-wits, indoctrinated fools, and unproductive leeches voting for tyrants.

You are case in point why 'we' cannot have nice things.

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't deserve the ill consequences from half-wits, indoctrinated fools, and unproductive leeches voting for tyrants.
> 
> You are case in point why 'we' cannot have nice things.


fascinating conjecture, for a fool.
thanks for the neg rep, may I have another?

----------


## fr33

> can you push "consent" lower than that? 
> 
> pontificate thus.


Yes. There is nothing more local than myself. Stop calling yourself a good neighbor while telling others what to do.

----------


## HVACTech

> Yes. There is nothing more local than myself. Stop calling yourself a good neighbor while telling others what to do.





> There is nothing more local than myself.





> There is nothing more local than myself.





> There is nothing more local than myself.


what do I do now? 
spin around and chant it again?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> fascinating conjecture, for a fool.
> thanks for the neg rep, may I have another?


I covered another neg for him.

I'll tell you what. For someone who presents himself as someone who couldn't blow his nose if his brain were dynamite around here, you sure do like to insult people.

----------


## Origanalist

> I covered another neg for him.


Why? He's entitled to his opinion. I'm partially on board with him despite his attack mode, it's why I still donate when I can and even still vote. Hope springs eternal......

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Why? He's entitled to his opinion. I'm partially on board with him despite his attack mode, it's why I still donate when I can and even still vote. Hope springs eternal......


I don't like him. He's said a lot of things about me that simply weren't true for no other reason than to get some attention as far as I can tell. And I see him do it to a lot of people. It's his attack mode that I don't like. I'd bump some of those comments he's made but there isn't much to be had from doing so. Beyond that, his language is filthy. Some of the nasty things he says behind the anonymity of a keyboard would get him rolled backward a couple times in the real world.

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't like him. He's said a lot of things about me that simply weren't true for no other reason than to get some attention as far as I can tell. And I see him do it to a lot of people. It's his attack mode that I don't like. I'd bump some of those comments he's made but there isn't much to be had from doing so. Beyond that, his language is filthy. Some of the nasty things he says behind the anonymity of a keyboard would get him rolled backward a couple times in the real world.


You don't need to bump them, I'm well aware. He's lashing out because he does't like what he's reading. But, yet, he's still here....

And I recall someone someone who showed up just in the last week or so running his mouth much worse, but for some strange reason he just disappeared. 

I think the guy isn't so far removed from the people he's railing against, sometimes I wish my eyes hadn't been opened.

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't like him. He's said a lot of things about me that simply weren't true for no other reason than to get some attention as far as I can tell. And I see him do it to a lot of people. It's his attack mode that I don't like. I'd bump some of those comments he's made but there isn't much to be had from doing so. Beyond that, his language is filthy. Some of the nasty things he says behind the anonymity of a keyboard would get him rolled backward a couple times in the real world.


there are not that many high level HVAC/Rtechs in Hot Springs AR. 
my name is NOT a secret. 

yours is.

----------


## HVACTech

> You don't need to bump them, I'm well aware. He's lashing out because he does't like what he's reading. But, yet, he's still here....
> 
> And I recall someone someone who showed up just in the last week or so running his mouth much worse, but for some strange reason he just disappeared. 
> 
> I think the guy isn't so far removed from the people he's railing against, sometimes I wish my eyes hadn't been opened.


thank you sir,
the natural human condition is AnCap. 
meaning, ALL humans want to be left alone and to have free markets. 

trumpeting it as a solution. 
is adolescent.

----------


## Origanalist

> thank you sir,
> the natural human condition is AnCap. 
> meaning, ALL humans want to be left alone and to have free markets. 
> 
> trumpeting it as a solution. 
> is adolescent.


Not adolescent, just not realistic considering the mentality of your average boob tube informed american. (yes, I know I didn't capitalize that word)

Unfortunately I must disagree with you. Most people now do not "want to be left alone and to have free markets" or we wouldn't be in the shape we are.

----------


## HVACTech

> Not adolescent, just not realistic considering the mentality of your average boob tube informed american. (yes, I know I didn't capitalize that word)
> 
> Unfortunately I must disagree with you. Most people now do not "want to be left alone and to have free markets" or we wouldn't be in the shape we are.


yah, the statists are a real problem. 
and yes! they are winning!
why? because we do not present a cohesive front. 

 we argue ENDLESSLY over the EXACT meanings of the word "state" and "consent"

Lysander Spooner rocks dude!   

ONLY Lysander and the anti-federalists got it right!

----------


## Natural Citizen

> there are not that many high level HVAC/Rtechs in Hot Springs AR. 
> my name is NOT a secret. 
> 
> yours is.


No, it isn't. That's where you're mistaken. A lot of people here know who I am. And they know me well enough to call me if they need help with anything productive. Do you know why they know who I am and you don't? I'll tell you why. Firstly, because I care very little about who you are or what you do. To me, you're just a dolt sitting behind a keyboard with a smart mouth. How many threads have you even started since you changed your screen name? 5 maybe? And about what? Silly crap. Secondly, it's because those people who do know aren't here to talk about their adventures in ac repair every 3 posts. That's why. We're not in Hot Springs AR with a busted air conditioner. We're on RPF doing something relevant.

If you want to run your trap about air conditioning, there are several forums that exist for the purpose of the subject. Seek them out if you're looking to glorify how good you think you are at your day job.

----------


## erowe1

> yes, by it's very existence it recognized the "state" as something necessary.
> 
> I therefore bow my head in shame to YOUR profound wisdom and detailed understanding of the meaning of the word "state" 
> 
> were I ONLY able to wrap my meager mind around this word. I would understand.


Is sarcasm your way of avoiding discussion? Why did you bother even making this thread?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.


Agreed, but is focus on the original intent a way to escape the dysfunctional dogma impairing our collective action in our best interest?

I think so, and could support that such a position itself was intended just by referring to what led to the constitution from the intents defined in the Declaration of Independence. 

Chiefly the extension of alter or abolish as Article V.




> Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.


True enough, but natural law dictates we take action protecting our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness.

Therein is the basis of logic dictating, naturally, that we focus on the original
Intent rather than the various dysfunctional aspects detailed in the thread.




> That is before I even go into what a generally $#@!ty document it was and is.
> 
> It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.


The only thing really good about it is many people know it exists and believe it stands for rights we have that government cannot violate.

Is there anything wrong with using the knowledge and belief of the people to help them to act in their best interests by using a superior grasp of the situation and standing for the unity of Americans in defense of unalienable rights in whatever and most functional said unity might be found?

----------


## Henry Rogue

> thank you, 
> 
> now, lets move on to the meaning of the word "STATE"  shall we?   
> "I am in a Texas state of mind". 
> 
> we have a "state" called Virginia. was this "state" always known thusly? no, it was NOT.
> before it became the "state" of Virginia, it was probably in another state. or, perhaps not in any state at all. (wilderness) 
> 
> as an HVACTech, I DO know the meaning of the word "state"  
> ...


 You are asking Proindividual to elaborate on something he never wrote. You confused Proindividual with A Son of Liberty.

----------


## fr33

> what do I do now? 
> spin around and chant it again?


Shove it up your ass for all I care. Is there a point to this post?

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> No, 
> No, it isn't. That's where you're mistaken. A lot of people here know who I am. And they know me well enough to call me if they need help with anything productive.


I'm calling you because I need help with something productive.

HVAC has not been accountable to accept that free speech has a specific and ultimate purpose nor has he explained why he does not agree and accept that purpose.  He has not explained what sacrifices or compromises making said agreement and acceptance would constitute.  He's been asked several time and refuses.  Many have.

Before I ask you if you agree and accept that such purpose is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, I should ask you if you understand the potential product of prime constitutional intent shared, understood and agreed upon and accepted by American people related to Article V as the codified method, under the law of the land, to alter or abolish?

----------


## Ender

> I'm calling you because I need help with something productive.
> 
> HVAC has not been accountable to accept that free speech has a specific and ultimate purpose nor has he explained why he does not agree and accept that purpose.  He has not explained what sacrifices or compromises making said agreement and acceptance would constitute.  He's been asked several time and refuses.  Many have.
> 
> Before I ask you if you agree and accept that such purpose is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, I should ask you if you understand the potential product of prime constitutional intent shared, understood and agreed upon and accepted by American people related to Article V as the codified method, under the law of the land, to alter or abolish?


Dude- the Constitution was a coup- the only viable American document is the Declaration- start there.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Dude- the Constitution was a coup- the only viable American document is the Declaration- start there.


Maybe you are missing that the term "alter or abolish" is of the Declaration.

Maybe you don't know that the Declaration is not considered law.

Maybe you've missed how I use the a Declaration to show constitutional intent.

Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".   

QUESTION:

*If the framers intended for the American people to have the right to alter or abolish, they obviously intended for them to have enough power available to prevail in that manner over government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights.  Obviously the unity of the American people is the only way they can have that power.

What did the framers intend to serve the purpose of creating that unity amongst the people?*

----------


## acptulsa

> If the framers intended for the American people to have the right to alter or abolish, they obviously intended for them to have enough power available to prevail in that manner over government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights.  Obviously the unity of the American people is the only way they can have that power.


It isn't obvious.  It doesn't even follow.  The Constitution does not require unanimity to effect change, whether among the electorate, in Congress, or when it comes to amendments.




> What did the framers intend to serve the purpose of creating that unity amongst the people?


Obviously nothing in the Bill of Rights, considering the document was framed, debated and ratified before the Bill of Rights even existed as such.

----------


## TheTexan

> Maybe you don't know that the Declaration is not considered law.


Phrased differently, the Declaration of Independence is illegal

----------


## otherone

> Phrased differently, the Declaration of Independence is illegal


Repped.
Please lend me some reps for Mr. Annoying.  One of the most spot-on comments I've read on RPF in some time.
Kudos, sir.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Repped.
> Please lend me some reps for Mr. Annoying.  One of the most spot-on comments I've read on RPF in some time.
> Kudos, sir.


Gladly. I like bxm042.

----------


## Anti Federalist

third-ed

----------


## CCTelander

> Repped.
> Please lend me some reps for Mr. Annoying.  One of the most spot-on comments I've read on RPF in some time.
> Kudos, sir.



Got it covered.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Phrased differently, the Declaration of Independence is illegal


Well deserved rep.

I can think of number of instances where, an open reading of the DoI, in modern english usage, would get you arrested.

Or at least SWATTed.

----------


## HVACTech

> It isn't obvious.  It doesn't even follow.  The Constitution does not require unanimity to effect change, whether among the electorate, in Congress, or when it comes to amendments.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously nothing in the Bill of Rights, considering the document was framed, debated and ratified before the Bill of Rights even existed as such.


correct. both constitutions were created to protect the DOI. as it simply could not stand on it's own.

the DOI contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper. the  bor served as a distraction from the DOI and also a tool for the fedgov to increase it's power.

I am in NO WAY shape or form suggesting that we should not keep them, we should. 
we have the ONLY system of government ever devised by mankind with the expressed purpose of limiting government. 
it has, somehow, fallen on OUR shoulders to restore it.
our great grand fathers lost the constitution before any of us were born.
 they can claim ignorance or lack of education.

ignorance in todays world is a choice.

----------


## erowe1

> correct. both constitutions were created to protect the DOI. as it simply could not stand on it's own.


The US Constitution directly opposes the DOI.

----------


## Danke

> Gladly. I like bxm042.


Ya, but you are also fond of the teachers you had in school too.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> the DOI contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper. the  bor served as a distraction from the DOI and also a tool for the fedgov to increase it's power.


Please post the section of the DoI that specifically prohibits the federal government from establishing a national, mandatory, church.

Or using cruel and unusual punishment in criminal cases.

Or passing a law requiring that you board soldiers in your home.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Ya, but you are also fond of the teachers you had in school too.


I like just about everyone. Even you, Danke. You know you're one of my favorites.

----------


## Danke

> I like just about everyone. Even you, Danke. You know you're one of my favorites.


$#@!, what am I doing wrong.

----------


## HVACTech

> The US Constitution directly opposes the DOI.


really?
that would seem a trifle odd to me. 1776 to 1791 = 15 years. 
they had plenty of time for consideration. and yet!
they missed the gem that you are now about to share with us?  or, did you just state (I hate that word!) this as a point of known fact?

----------


## Danke

> The US Constitution directly opposes the DOI.


Can you elaborate?

----------


## HVACTech

> Please post the section of the DoI that specifically prohibits the federal government from establishing a national, mandatory, church.
> 
> Or using cruel and unusual punishment in criminal cases.
> 
> Or passing a law requiring that you board soldiers in your home.


uh, you, are asking me... to defend the DOI?

THAT was the original purpose of both US constitutions.



the founders chose an enumerated powers document in a Republic. 
brilliant in MY opinion.

HOW would YOU defend it sir?

----------


## PierzStyx

Even if it was, it would be a Lockean Social Contract, and Locke specifically said the public's obligation to the government ceased when their rights were violated and revolution was justified.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> uh, you, are asking me... to defend the DOI?
> 
> THAT was the original purpose of both US constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> the founders chose an enumerated powers document in a Republic. 
> brilliant in MY opinion.
> 
> HOW would YOU defend it sir?


You stated the the Bill of Rights is a "distraction and a tool for the FedGov to increase its power".

You stated that the DoI "contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper".

I am asking you to post the specific passages in either the DoI or the 1787 Constitution that prohibits the federal governemnt from passing a law establishing a national church. (for example)

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> It isn't obvious.  It doesn't even follow.  The Constitution does not require unanimity to effect change, whether among the electorate, in Congress, or when it comes to amendments.
> 
> Obviously nothing in the Bill of Rights, considering the document was framed, debated and ratified before the Bill of Rights even existed as such.


Unanimity?  Unity of the people upon constitutional intent is nothing so formal.

Dude, you are SO against a lawful and peaceful revolution you forget that constitutional intent is defined by the people.  Your position is exactly the position an infiltrating agent will take who is working to prevent the people from understanding the latitude the people have when they are in agreement upon constitutional intent.

We can derive our agreements upon intent from any of the framers writings.  We can infer, we can derive implication on our deductions of what they intended for us to use to form government best suited for our safety and happiness.  When those are agreed upon by a number of them, and do not contradict any other stated intents, it's a done deal.

Go back to your masters and lick their boots.  We are not buying any of your peasant musings.

----------


## acptulsa

> Dude, you are SO against a lawful and peaceful revolution you forget that constitutional intent is defined by the people.


So what is it the Democrats say?  If you're not for the federal Department of Education, you're anti-education and pro-ignorance?  If we aren't for education their way we aren't for education at all?  If you don't want to do what doesn't work you don't want the job done?

Why didn't you just tell us from the start that you're just another arrogant Democrat?  We'd have understood.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> So what is it the Democrats say?  If you're not for the federal Department of Education, you're anti-education and pro-ignorance?  If we aren't for education their way we aren't for education at all?  If you don't want to do what doesn't work you don't want the job done?
> 
> Why didn't you just tell us from the start that you're just another arrogant Democrat?  We'd have understood.


Your analogy does not work, but your mistake in attempting to use it indicates your cognitive failure to grasp natural law.

If you are not recognizing the purpose of free speech as being to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish, you are not supporting understanding, which is the key to real education.

It is fully possible to "convince" someone without creating an understanding in them of the true situation.  That is misleading, whether intentional or not.

You've been convinced of something you cannot actually describe.  If you could, you would have been able to accurately describe the problem as well as the solution, OR certainly recognize it when described to you!

The uses of cognitive distortions are certainly to blame.  Observe your effort in the close of your post to apply "all or nothing thinking".

----------


## acptulsa

> Your analogy does not work...


It works just fine.  For every purpose except yours, which is to remain in denial.




> You've been convinced of something you cannot actually describe.  If you could, you would have been able to accurately describe the problem as well as the solution, OR certainly recognize it when described to you!


You're trying to sell a snake oil miracle drug that you haven't the articulation to describe.  Which is why you keep going off your sales talk to attack everyone who asks you a question about it.

Failure is blaming the customer for the fact that the product, the salesman, or both suck.

----------


## HVACTech

> You stated the the Bill of Rights is a "distraction and a tool for the FedGov to increase its power".
> 
> You stated that the DoI "contained ALL of the "rights" that are necessary and proper".
> 
> I am asking you to post the specific passages in either the DoI or the 1787 Constitution that prohibits the federal governemnt from passing a law establishing a national church. (for example)


WHY is it necessary for me to educate you?
the fedgov has CLEARLY turned into a MONSTER that it was never intended to be. how did this happen? 
we are not working together to find answers, you and your MANY cohorts are running interference and sowing obfuscation.

YES! a very good argument can be made that it was in fact the BOR that gave unscrupulous men the leverage that they needed to expand power beyond the scope of the "enumerated powers" granted.




> But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration,* which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,* _than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns._ If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
> 
> *I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.* _For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?_ Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, *when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?* I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp,* a plausible pretense for claiming that power.* They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.


does this FULLY answer the question? no, it does not.
the other PRIMARY factor is widespread IGNORANCE and the basic lack of education that you display. 
would I mind having this conversation with a new member? no, I would not.

but YOU are not a new member are you? 
you are in fact, THE member with the most chevrons and laurels.
YOU are the leader sir, like it or not.  

this website was created to promote and provide a platform for the dissemination of Ron's message. Ron's message was about the constitution, Liberty and sound money.
anti-federalist and anti-constitution are synonyms.  
this places you in DIRECT opposition to myself, and both Ron and Rand Paul. relating to matters of the constitution. 
you have made a farce out of one of Dr Pauls main pillars. 

under YOUR leadership, you have drawn vast minions to your cause on this website.
my own efforts here are waning as a result.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> WHY is it necessary for me to educate you?
> 
> .  .  .IGNORANCE and the basic lack of education that you display. 
> would I mind having this conversation with a new member? no, I would not.
> 
> but YOU are not a new member are you? 
> you are in fact, THE member with the most chevrons and laurels.
> YOU are the leader sir, like it or not.  
> 
> ...


Your efforts are not waning, but they have not born fruition either.  There is a period of confusion, of indecision resting upon the sincere here.

Appropriate words to AF btw.

The below is something I've seen before, which I understand and see as being a reason for your non acceptance of the purpose of free speech.




> For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.


Yes, that is all true.  However, the unmentioned powers which is assumed in that perspective to exclude others, is not exactly clear after generations who have never overtly known the purpose of free speech.

The effect of the first amendment within the general implications of the quoted quoted, essentially defines what the government cannot do.  What the people can do is not defined either.  What covert government enabled power can do is also not defined.

So the secret control over media and the effective purpose of free speech is artificially separated from government control, as if covert factions CANNOT THEREFORE act in the interests of an infiltration of the government.

In our case, an infiltration seeking to destroy the protections from government the people need to remain free.

My point is that NOT stating what one entity is prohibited from doing does not create awareness of what is needed by another entity, the people, and what they can do, or the purpose of rights they have for doing it.

----------


## HVACTech

> Your efforts are not waning, but they have not born fruition either.  There is a period of confusion, of indecision resting upon the sincere here.
> 
> Appropriate words to AF btw.
> 
> The below is something I've seen before, which I understand and see as being a reason for your non acceptance of the purpose of free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is all true.  However, the unmentioned powers which is assumed in that perspective to exclude others, is not exactly clear after generations who have never overtly known the purpose of free speech.
> ...


dude, YOU are doing what Hamilton warned against, in your efforts to "weaponize" "free speech"

from the DOI.




> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.


does THIS sound familiar in today's world?

the constitution was designed to prevent this from happening by NOT giving them the power to do so. at the federal level.
at the state level it was a bit more flexible on this matter. 
and at the Local level. it was pretty much anything goes. 

a system of enumerated powers in a Republic is what they chose. in fact ALL states AND the fedgov are required to be Republics. 
they included the democratic PROCESS only as a means for the people to provide "consent" 
other than that, Democracy is illegal in this country.  

use the KISS principle to spread enlightenment.

this will probably be my last post.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> the fedgov has CLEARLY turned into a MONSTER that it was never intended to be. how did this happen?


So, the answer is: you can not post the passage.

----------


## erowe1

> the constitution was designed to prevent this from happening.


Why do you believe that?

----------


## erowe1

> really?
> that would seem a trifle odd to me. 1776 to 1791 = 15 years. 
> they had plenty of time for consideration. and yet!
> they missed the gem that you are now about to share with us?  or, did you just state (I hate that word!) this as a point of known fact?


Known fact.

----------


## erowe1

> Can you elaborate?


Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.


Uh huh, this.

Which is why we now live in a "regulatory state", that passes regulations without representation that carry the force of law.

----------


## osan

> Uh huh, this.
> 
> Which is why we now live in a "regulatory state", that passes regulations without representation that carry the force of law gangsters with guns.


Acme Sentence Repair, at your service.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> It works just fine.  For every purpose except yours, which is to remain in denial.


If that was true you would be able to explain your plan to create the needed unity to overthrow the tyrants.  Get started with your next post, okay.




> You're trying to sell a snake oil miracle drug that you haven't the articulation to describe.  Which is why you keep going off your sales talk to attack everyone who asks you a question about it.
> 
> Failure is blaming the customer for the fact that the product, the salesman, or both suck.


People have not been asking questions about it, that's the problem.  They know its sound.   Only agents object to it.

The product is freedom and everyone here is supposed to be interested in that, you resist more than most.

----------


## Danke

> Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.


And those are negative rights on the government.  Not that they follow them.

----------


## acptulsa

> The product is freedom and everyone here is supposed to be interested in that, you resist more than most.


Now you're contradicting yourself.  You weren't claiming to sell freedom, but unity through a shared belief in your dogma that free speech serves no purpose other than alter abolish blah blah blah.  You weren't selling clean dishes, you were selling dish soap.  And your dish soap seems to lack detergent, and you can't or won't explain how it works.

'Get every single dirty dish to unanimously agree that this goop I just pulled out of my differential is soap, and they will instantly be clean as a whistle!!'

And no one is asking questions because when we did, you not only failed to answer any of them, but attacked everyone who asked.

----------


## otherone

> Sure. The DOI says that any powers exercised without the consent of the people are unjust, and the Constitution enumerates a whole bunch of powers to be exercised without the consent of the people.


FFs:  "Lissen up, everybody!  We're here to protect your RIGHTS!  Do we have your _consent_?"
People: "I dunno....it's sounds too good to be true...what's the downside?"
FFs:  "There IS NO downside!  A downside would mean violating your Rights without your consent!  Do we have a deal?"
People: "Sure! We'd be stupid NOT to!"
FF's: "Great! Now give us your money."
People:  "Woah...hold on...you can't do that."
FF's:  "Of course we can...you gave us your_ consent_ ."

----------


## CCTelander

> FFs:  "Lissen up, everybody!  We're here to protect your RIGHTS!  Do we have your _consent_?"
> People: "I dunno....it's sounds too good to be true...what's the downside?"
> FFs:  "There IS NO downside!  A downside would mean violating your Rights without your consent!  Do we have a deal?"
> People: "Sure! We'd be stupid NOT to!"
> FF's: "Great! Now give us your money."
> People:  "Woah...hold on...you can't do that."
> FF's:  "Of course we can...you gave us your_ consent_ ."



+rep

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Now you're contradicting yourself.  You weren't claiming to sell freedom, but unity through a shared belief in your dogma that  free speech serves no purpose other than alter abolish


That is untrue.  You will be unable to quote me saying such.  You misrepresent exactly as a covert manipulating agent would.

The product of unity is freedom, I'm not selling it.

You misrepresent that I say that free speech has "no purpose other than [to] alter [or] abolish.

Free speech serves infinite purposes, but its ultimate purpose is to assure survival, or to stop tyrants destruction to our unalienable rights.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Let's assume for a moment government knows best just for giggles and grins to argue the OP.  I do not understand how one can promote the Constitution yet claim it does not apply to people.  Let us take into consideration for a moment how government has interpreted it.  In order to amend the AoC the document required agreement among all states.  The Constitution only required ratification of like nine states.  The theory goes the source of power of any state is the people therefore the people can override the AoC.  They didn't make that theory up totally out of the blue but claims it goes back to the DoI declaring people have the right to change their government, etc.  Hence "We the People."  On a side note, that in itself is some interesting language.  Why do you need we and people in the same phrase?  Aren't they both plural?   Clearly we can not logically equal people and refer to the same exact thing.  Government has always interpreted the Constitution to mean it applies to states and people whereas the AoC only applied to states.  Since government has the guns and that is the interpretation that has been coerced upon everyone ... what is the argument exactly?  I mean on what basis are you suggesting the constitution does not apply to people or for that matter we the people?  Are you proposing some new ethical theory where you are trying to declare your legal theory and interpretation of the constitution is more ethical that how it has been interpreted thus far?

----------


## HVACTech

> Let's assume for a moment government knows best just for giggles and grins to argue the OP.  I do not understand how one can promote the Constitution yet claim it does not apply to people.  Let us take into consideration for a moment how government has interpreted it.  In order to amend the AoC the document required agreement among all states.  The Constitution only required ratification of like nine states.  The theory goes the source of power of any state is the people therefore the people can override the AoC.  They didn't make that theory up totally out of the blue but claims it goes back to the DoI declaring people have the right to change their government, etc.  Hence "We the People."  On a side note, that in itself is some interesting language.  Why do you need we and people in the same phrase?  Aren't they both plural?   Clearly we can not logically equal people and refer to the same exact thing.  Government has always interpreted the Constitution to mean it applies to states and people whereas the AoC only applied to states.  Since government has the guns and that is the interpretation that has been coerced upon everyone ... what is the argument exactly?  I mean on what basis are you suggesting the constitution does not apply to people or for that matter we the people?  Are you proposing some new ethical theory where you are trying to declare your legal theory and interpretation of the constitution is more ethical that how it has been interpreted thus far?





> what is the argument exactly?  I mean on what basis are you suggesting the constitution does not apply to people or for that matter we the people?


what you are asking sir, is for me to prove a negative. this is not something that I can do. 

separate the original Constitution from the BOR and all of the amendments. 
the BOR was added 3 years later. 

now, can you see what I am talking about?

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

Would you agree HVAC that they should have explicitly stated as much in the constitution?  i.e. would it be smart of us to make a constitutional amendment that clarifies the only authority the federal government has is over the states which wish to be a part of the union?

And (for my own reading pleasure) which authors of the constitution did you find to have the most 'anarchist' tendencies or alignment?

----------


## HVACTech

> Would you agree HVAC that they should have explicitly stated as much in the constitution? * i.e. would it be smart of us to make a constitutional amendment that clarifies the only authority the federal government has is over the states which wish to be a part of the union*?
> 
> And (for my own reading pleasure) which authors of the constitution did you find to have the most 'anarchist' tendencies or alignment?


yes, I do. 
as can be seen in this very thread. there is MUCH confusion over this point.
we can now look back over 239 years and do an analysis.

I am of the opinion, that the founders wanted to protect the anarchists, from both themselves and the statists. 
government, (the state) is in fact the problem, lack of government also creates problems. 

to me, it is VERY clear that the founders were not statists. were they therefore anarchists? 
probably.

----------


## HVACTech

//

----------


## Anti Federalist

Where the people are free there can be no great contrast or distinction among honest citizens in or out of office. In proportion, as the people lose their freedom, every gradation of distinction, between the Governors and governed obtains, until the former become masters, and the latter become slaves. – Anti-Federalist No. 3

----------


## Anti Federalist

I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union. Such a government, while it would give us respectability abroad, would not encroach upon, or subvert our liberties at home." – Anti-Federalist No. 5

----------


## Anti Federalist

The source of the apprehensions of this so much dreaded anarchy would upon investigation be found to arise from the artful suggestions of designing men, and not from a rational probability grounded on the actual state of affairs. The least reflection is sufficient to detect the fallacy to show that there is no one circumstance to justify the prediction of such an event. On the contrary a short time will evince, to the utter dismay and confusion of the conspirators, that a perseverance in cramming down their scheme of power upon the freemen of this State [Pennsylvania] will inevitably produce an anarchy destructive of their darling domination, and may kindle a flame prejudicial to their safety. They should be cautious not to trespass too far on the forbearance of freemen when wresting their dearest concerns, but prudently retreat from the gathering storm. – Anti-Federalist No. 6

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> FFs:  "Lissen up, everybody!  We're here to protect your RIGHTS!  Do we have your _consent_?"
> People: "I dunno....it's sounds too good to be true...what's the downside?"
> FFs:  "There IS NO downside!  A downside would mean violating your Rights without your consent!  Do we have a deal?"
> People: "Sure! We'd be stupid NOT to!"
> FF's: "Great! Now give us your money."
> People:  "Woah...hold on...you can't do that."
> FF's:  "Of course we can...you gave us your_ consent_ ."


+rep

----------


## heavenlyboy34

AF, erowe, et. al have brought so much win into this thread that I regretfully cannot +rep all of it.  Beg your pardon, amigos.  Peace unto y'all and keep up the good work.

----------


## Anti Federalist

"A principal, which having been generally purchased for two shillings and six pence on the pound, will yield to the holders two hundred and forty per cent. This paper system therefore, though in general an evil, is in this instance attended with the great benefit of enabling the public to cancel a debt upon easy terms, which has been swelled to its enormous size, by as enormous impositions. And the new government, by promising too much, will involve itself in a disreputable breach of faith." - Anti-Federalist No. 12

----------


## Anti Federalist

"If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. *But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty—if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory."* – Anti-Federalist No. 17

----------


## HVACTech

> "If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. *But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty—if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory."* – Anti-Federalist No. 17


thank you AF for your wise counsel. 
I will now request that my account be closed. (casey jones style) and leave the country.

as you well know, many of us became ex pats in 07. 
I stuck around because I believed it was worth both fighting for and saving.

fighting with you, over defending the CONstitution. on RPF's of all places.. has convinced me otherwise. 

have fun freezing your ass off up there buddy. 
I am going to seek a job in the Caribbean.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Thanks for sharing all that, AF.  The _Anti-Federalist_ reads like lofty, profound, wise poetry.  Kinda like psalms against the CONstitution.

----------


## TheTexan

> thank you AF for your wise counsel. 
> I will now request that my account be closed. (casey jones style) and leave the country.
> 
> as you well know, many of us became ex pats in 07. 
> I stuck around because I believed it was worth both fighting for and saving.
> 
> fighting with you, over defending the CONstitution. on RPF's of all places.. has convinced me otherwise. 
> 
> have fun freezing your ass off up there buddy. 
> I am going to seek a job in the Caribbean.


Haha good luck in the caribbean they probably dont even have a constitution... they probably have some other kind of document.

Constitution ftw

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Haha good luck in the caribbean they probably dont even have a constitution... they probably have some other kind of document.
> *
> Constitution ftw*


LMFAO!!!!   You crack me up, bro.

----------


## Ender

> thank you AF for your wise counsel. 
> I will now request that my account be closed. (casey jones style) and leave the country.
> 
> as you well know, many of us became ex pats in 07. 
> I stuck around because I believed it was worth both fighting for and saving.
> 
> fighting with you, over defending the CONstitution. on RPF's of all places.. has convinced me otherwise. 
> 
> have fun freezing your ass off up there buddy. 
> I am going to seek a job in the Caribbean.


Sometimes ya just gotta get over your public school edumacation and face the truth, Dude. 

Can be a mind-blower at first- a blessing later.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> thank you AF for your wise counsel. 
> I will now request that my account be closed. (casey jones style) and leave the country.
> 
> as you well know, many of us became ex pats in 07. 
> I stuck around because I believed it was worth both fighting for and saving.
> 
> fighting with you, over defending the CONstitution. on RPF's of all places.. has convinced me otherwise. 
> 
> have fun freezing your ass off up there buddy. 
> I am going to seek a job in the Caribbean.


Good luck.

I've lived in the Caribbean before.

Endless summer and island paradise ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Besides, I'm not "fighting you", you silly man, I am *discussing* with you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> thank you AF for your wise counsel. 
> I will now request that my account be closed. (casey jones style) and leave the country.
> 
> as you well know, many of us became ex pats in 07. 
> I stuck around because I believed it was worth both fighting for and saving.
> 
> fighting with you, over defending the CONstitution. on RPF's of all places.. has convinced me otherwise. 
> 
> have fun freezing your ass off up there buddy. 
> I am going to seek a job in the Caribbean.


Good luck.

I've lived in the Caribbean before.

Endless summer and island paradise ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Besides, I'm not "fighting you", you silly man, I am *discussing* with you.

----------


## HVACTech

> Good luck.
> 
> I've lived in the Caribbean before.
> 
> Endless summer and island paradise ain't all it's cracked up to be.
> 
> Besides, I'm not "fighting you", you silly man, I am *discussing* with you.


you, have convinced me to go ex pat. 

this land has become a Police state, and is no longer worth fighting for, or over. 
 we should have listened to the anti-federalists.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> yah. a good friend on mine. (was a basic neocon) is taking the courses at Hillsdale college. 
> 
> http://lp.hillsdale.edu/constitution...ampaign=con101
> 
> he is now on the 2nd level.. and we talk about it daily.
>  check this out dude, the education that we got back in the day, is holding up pretty darn good. 
> ceptin of course for that "anti-federalist" guy.  I KNOW what that means now...
> 
> this site has anti-constitution gatekeepers....
> ...


That explains a lot.

----------


## HVACTech

> That explains a lot.


yah, my friend is a noob, sorta like you in a way. 

Belize, Guatemala and the Honduras are really the only practical choices.  

MY problem down there.. 
is, that at over 6'3" thin, blond hair and blue eyes... I will stick out like a... sore thumb. 

you would fit in better.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> yah, my friend is a noob, sorta like you in a way. 
> 
> Belize, Guatemala and the Honduras are really the only practical choices.  
> 
> MY problem down there.. 
> is, that at over 6'3" thin, blond hair and blue eyes... I will stick out like a... sore thumb. 
> 
> you would fit in better.


Roatan is a lot more expensive than Hot Springs.

I'm taller, fatter and whiter than you.

I've already stuck out enough.

----------


## HVACTech

> Roatan is a lot more expensive than Hot Springs.
> 
> I'm taller, fatter and whiter than you.
> 
> I've already stuck out enough.


expense is relative to location. try this. place a service call for a walk in freezer wherever the $#@! you live.
or a commercial ice machine. yes, they have those even in $#@!ing Alaska.

and you will find out who you are talking to.

oh, and I thank you very much! I was not yet aware of Roatán. my friend and I are both skilled and have our own money. 
we would like to find someplace where we can do some good you know?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> expense is relative to location. try this. place a service call for a walk in freezer wherever the $#@! you live.
> or a commercial ice machine. yes, they have those even in $#@!ing Alaska.
> 
> and you will find out who you are talking to.
> 
> oh, and I thank you very much! I was not yet aware of Roatán. my friend and I are both skilled and have our own money. 
> we would like to find someplace where we can do some good you know?


I make my own ice.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> what you are asking sir, is for me to prove a negative. this is not something that I can do.


You are the one claiming the Constitution does not apply to the people beginning in the OP.

You also asserted:  


> WITHOUT the BOR, its purpose and intent would have been clear.


and haven't proven that one either ...





> separate the original Constitution from the BOR and all of the amendments. 
> the BOR was added 3 years later. 
> 
> now, can you see what I am talking about?


No.  In the post I wrote I didn't even mention the BoR.  The BoR came after anything I mentioned as well.  I can provide some legal citations to actually illustrate government has interpreted the Constitution using rationale I provided above.  I don't think I need to as you ought to be familiar with a few.  So if what I have asserted is true in that government has interpreted the Constitution in a certain historical light that has nothing to do with the BoR you need to be able to demonstrate 1) your claim about interpreting the Constitution without the BoR has any merit, 2) the branch of government and entities established by the Constitution to judge are wrong, and 3) a remedy established by the Constitution responsive to a judicial branch of government that errors in judgement.

----------


## HVACTech

> You are the one claiming the Constitution does not apply to the people beginning in the OP.
> 
> You also asserted:  
> 
> and haven't proven that one either ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  In the post I wrote I didn't even mention the BoR.  The BoR came after anything I mentioned as well.  I can provide some legal citations to actually illustrate government has interpreted the Constitution using rationale I provided above.  I don't think I need to as you ought to be familiar with a few.  So if what I have asserted is true in that government has interpreted the Constitution in a certain historical light that has nothing to do with the BoR you need to be able to demonstrate 1) your claim about interpreting the Constitution without the BoR has any merit, 2) the branch of government and entities established by the Constitution to judge are wrong, and 3) a remedy established by the Constitution responsive to a judicial branch of government that errors in judgement.


you are trying really, REALLY hard to make this complicated and complex. 
we have one of the shortest Constitutions (rule of law) in the world. in fact probably THE shortest. 




> *Interpreting the Constitution*
> 
>         The purpose of a written constitution is entirely defeated if, in interpreting it as a legal document, its provisions are manipulated and worked around so that the document means whatever the manipulators wish. Jefferson recognized this danger and spoke out constantly for careful adherence to the Constitution as written, with changes to be made by amendment, not by tortured and twisted interpretations of the text.





> "The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--*a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it*, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248



when Tom returned from France. what was his opinion of the "anti-Federalists"?

----------


## HVACTech

> lol
> 
> And "the states" are...?
> 
> I get your malfunction now, at least... you think "states" are an actual thing.
> 
> They're not.  They're figments of your imagination.


ha ha! YOU are SO funny!    

and $#@!ING stupid enough to suggest that a senior HVAC/R service tech does NOT know what a "state" is. 

a "state" is a "phase" azzhat. 

care to challenge MY definition of the word "state"?

----------


## erowe1

> ha ha! YOU are SO funny!    
> 
> and $#@!ING stupid enough to suggest that a senior HVAC/R service tech does NOT know what a "state" is. 
> 
> a "state" is a "phase" azzhat. 
> 
> care to challenge MY definition of the word "state"?


What does being a senior HVAC/R service tech have to do with knowing what a "state" is?

----------


## HVACTech

> What does being a senior HVAC/R service tech have to do with knowing what a "state" is?


think of it this way,
what is Propane before it is burned? 
as the "Freon" circulates in a closed loop. it's "state" is changed. from a liquid to a gas. 

both the "freon" and the Propane changed "state" 
change of state is a phase change. 

why do I live in a state of Arkansas?
it is a "phase" only. right?

this land was here LONG before I showed up..

what does the word "state" mean to you sir?

----------


## mrsat_98

> what does the word "state" mean to you sir?



state
stāt/Submit
noun
1.
*the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.*
"the state of the company's finances"
synonyms:	condition, shape, situation, circumstances, position; More
2.
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms:	country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation
"an autonomous state"
adjective
1.
of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country.
"the future of state education"
2.
used or done on ceremonial occasions; involving the ceremony associated with a head of state.
"a state visit to Hungary by Queen Elizabeth"
synonyms:	ceremonial, official, formal, governmental, national, public
"a state visit to France"
verb
1.
express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.
"the report stated that more than 51 percent of voters failed to participate"
synonyms:	express, voice, utter, put into words, declare, affirm, assert, announce, make known, put across/over, communicate, air, reveal, disclose, divulge, proclaim, present, expound; More
2.
MUSIC
present or introduce (a theme or melody) in a composition.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> think of it this way,
> what is Propane before it is burned? 
> as the "Freon" circulates in a closed loop. it's "state" is changed. from a liquid to a gas. 
> 
> both the "freon" and the Propane changed "state" 
> change of state is a phase change. 
> 
> why do I live in a state of Arkansas?
> it is a "phase" only. right?
> ...


Let's try something else.

What are the benefits of using R34a over R12?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> you are trying really, REALLY hard to make this complicated and complex. 
> we have one of the shortest Constitutions (rule of law) in the world. in fact probably THE shortest.


That is a non-argument.  The issue is simple.  The burden of proof is on  he who makes the claim.  You are and have been claiming the  Constitution does not apply to people.  I find it extremely difficult to  believe those individuals who  participated in the convention were  ignorant there was already a system  of government.  I find it extremely  difficult to believe those individuals who participated in the  convention were ignorant of the fact the purpose of the convention was  to amend the AoC.  I find it extremely difficult to believe those  individuals who participated in the convention were ignorant to the text  of the AoC and its amendment clause.

You have provided nothing to challenge the simple logic of the  convention convened by the government at that time was for the purpose  of amending the AoC, not supplanting it.  There is nothing complex about  that.  A comparable analogy would be an amendment under the present  constitution supplanting the entire document and ratified by less than  "the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by  Conventions in three fourths thereof."

The legal solution to that dilemma has been carved out by going back to  the DoI.  All sovereignty ultimately derives from the people.  The confederation established by the AoI rested upon  the authority of the people but its powers only applied to states.  By  ratifying the Constitution in popular conventions the people who are  ultimately sovereign exercised a judicial power to replace the AoI with  the Constitution.  It is plainly obvious under Article 1, Section 8 some  of the enumerated powers can only logically apply to individuals.  For  instance, counterfeiting coin.  Treason can only apply to individuals.   There is a reason the whole notion of jurisdiction exists.  There must  always be a nexus to the federal political subdivision for federal  jurisdiction but sometimes that nexus only need be an individual  operating in a state because all states are members of the United  States.  Also, any federal police powers apply to individuals.

Let us consider the  following excerpt from the Institutes of Justinian:

"The will of the Emperor has also the force of law : since  by the lex  r€gia^, passed to define his authority, the people have  granted for him  and to him all their authority and power.  Whatever, therefore, the  Emperor has established by his letter,  or decreed when sitting as  judge, or enjoined by his edict, is  admitted to be law; and these are  styled Constitutions"

Let us define the term people as used and understood at the time just using a garden variety dictionary of the day and ignoring any wisdom contained in things like Blackstone's Commentaries or the Institutes of Justinian about laws of persons or their divisions:

PEOPLE:  A nation; those who compose a community.  The vulgar.  The  commonality; not the princes or nobles.  Persons of a particular class.   Men or persons in general.

Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson (1768, 3rd  edition)  or 1792 edition  (look up People):
https://books.google.com/books?id=bX...page&q&f=false

We can say that no, the Constitution does not apply to "the" <-- "the"  people as in people meaning a plurality of those who compose a community  because sovereignty, as the theory goes, derives from that plurality  which ultimately derives from each individual member.  Yet individual != sovereignty.  Individual > sovereignty. Therefore sovereignty is only a part of each individual which is why we describe sovereignty as a capacity each individual can possess.  Group of individuals operating as one people = sovereignty.  Hence We "The" People.   However I do not  believe you are using the term people in that sense when you claim it  does not apply to people (people vs. "the" people).  We can say that people is a capacity of any  individual who composes a community, member of the commonality, person  of a particular class, or men or persons in general can operate in.   Capacity is a potential use, in this case use of an identity.

In the following example.  The bad press Ron Paul received.  Press is plural.  Bad is an adjective of press describing a kind of press.  The denotes and refers to this particular kind of group as one thing in its sum.  You wanted a simple construction based on plain language right?

----------


## HVACTech

> Let's try something else.
> 
> What are the benefits of using R34a over R12?


primarily the elimination of the chlorine molecule. R134A is an HFC, not a CFC.
both are medium pressure gasses. 

we do not use R134A anymore for commercial Refrigeration. most everything has gone over to R404A.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> primarily the elimination of the chlorine molecule. R134A is an HFC, not a CFC.
> both are medium pressure gasses. 
> 
> we do not use R134A anymore for commercial Refrigeration. most everything has gone over to R404A.


Thank you.

I feel like I've gained something from your posts now.

I was thinking about getting into automotive air conditioning. Going to have to take that EPA quiz and pay the twenty five bucks first, though.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> think of it this way,
> what is Propane before it is burned? 
> as the "Freon" circulates in a closed loop. it's "state" is changed. from a liquid to a gas. 
> 
> both the "freon" and the Propane changed "state" 
> change of state is a phase change. 
> 
> why do I live in a state of Arkansas?
> it is a "phase" only. right?
> ...


Using the narrow scope of your definition we could say the state of  America changed following the American Revolution when it transitioned  from a monarchy to confederation.  We could say the state of America  changed when the Constitution was adopted when it transitioned from a  confederation to a republic.

However all types or kinds of states  when used to describe any government have common traits such as  monopolies on defense and justice.  There is no type or kind of state  absent those qualities.  No advocates nor opponents of  anarcho-capitalisism describe such a potential society as a state.

Therefore  since all states have certain repulsive coercive attributes it is  perfectly valid to oppose states no matter how you want to define them.   Since all states have certain repulsive coercive attributes it is  perfectly valid to advocate the absence of a state when no one considers  some forms of social organization such as anarcho-capitalism as a  state.

However, according to your own definition state of  Arkansas != State of Arkansas.  Using your definition the state of  Arkansas is a republic whereas the State of Arkansas refers to a proper noun (ie. person, place, or  thing) denoted by capitalization.  I am pretty sure it reads We the  People of the State of Arkansas.  Plain language construction. 

Actually that is typically one of my questions in a court.  Perhaps you have an answer. As a proper noun is the State of Arkansas denoting a specific person, place, or thing?  I just want a full and honest disclosure so I know what you are talking about when you say the State of Arkansas.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thank you.
> 
> I feel like I've gained something from your posts now.
> 
> I was thinking about getting into automotive air conditioning. Going to have to take that EPA quiz and pay the twenty five bucks first, though.


134A is still common in automotive uses.

----------


## HVACTech

> Using the narrow scope of your definition we could say the state of  America changed following the American Revolution when it transitioned  from a monarchy to confederation.  We could say the state of America  changed when the Constitution was adopted when it transitioned from a  confederation to a republic.
> 
> However all types or kinds of states  when used to describe any government have common traits such as  monopolies on defense and justice.  There is no type or kind of state  absent those qualities.  No advocates nor opponents of  anarcho-capitalisism describe such a potential society as a state.
> 
> Therefore  since all states have certain repulsive coercive attributes it is  perfectly valid to oppose states no matter how you want to define them.   Since all states have certain repulsive coercive attributes it is  perfectly valid to advocate the absence of a state when no one considers  some forms of social organization such as anarcho-capitalism as a  state.
> 
> However, according to your own definition state of  Arkansas != State of Arkansas.  Using your definition the state of  Arkansas is a republic whereas the State of Arkansas refers to a proper noun (ie. person, place, or  thing) denoted by capitalization.  I am pretty sure it reads We the  People of the State of Arkansas.  Plain language construction. 
> 
> Actually that is typically one of my questions in a court.  Perhaps you have an answer. As a proper noun is the State of Arkansas denoting a specific person, place, or thing?  I just want a full and honest disclosure so I know what you are talking about when you say the State of Arkansas.





> The word "Arkansas" itself is a French pronunciation ("Arcansas") of a Quapaw (a related "Kaw" tribe) word, akakaze, meaning "land of downriver people" or the Sioux word akakaze meaning "people of the south wind".


the real burning question for me is... where is the "W"  in Arkansas?

----------


## erowe1

> think of it this way,
> what is Propane before it is burned? 
> as the "Freon" circulates in a closed loop. it's "state" is changed. from a liquid to a gas. 
> 
> both the "freon" and the Propane changed "state" 
> change of state is a phase change. 
> 
> why do I live in a state of Arkansas?
> it is a "phase" only. right?
> ...


You're equivocating between two totally different definitions.

In a political context, a state is a subgroup within a society that subjugates the rest using violence.

Or, to put that in other words, we can use this definition:



> 7.  a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state?s=t

States of matter are a totally separate concept:



> 2.  the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like:
> water in a gaseous state.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> the real burning question for me is... where is the "W"  in Arkansas?


I like burning questions.  Is "State of Arkansas" one proper noun or are "State" and "Arkansas" two proper nouns?

----------

