# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Time Magazine cover asks if the Constitution Still Matters

## bobbyw24

Provocative? Perhaps, but thats nothing new for Time magazine with a history of taking iconic American symbols and using them to make political statements.

On Thursday on MSNBCs Morning Joe, Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks does the document still matter. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.



Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think, Stengel said on Morning Joe. People all the time are debating whats constitutional and whats unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. Its for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. Its not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center. And what our politics are about  politics are about conflict. There was no people who argued more about defining principles of America than the framers of the Constitution. They argued both sides of the most powerful issues in American history  slavery, states rights, central government. So to say that what did the framers want is kind of a crazy question, I have to say. I write about that in the piece.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/ti...#ixzz1Q8JHVAVA

----------


## AGRP

Apparently it does since Time is allowed by the constitution to continually publish idiotic articles.

----------


## gls

Does Time Magazine still matter? Less and less each day thankfully.

----------


## bobbyw24

> Does Time Magazine still matter? Less and less each day thankfully.


Good point

----------


## RM918

Does...the declaration of independence still matter? Is that the question? Because I'm pretty sure that's what that is, but I might be wrong?

It was! This whole time I thought the 'We the People' bit was the declaration.

----------


## Romulus

Apparently Time knows which topics to cover, so there's your answer.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

TIME mag... Libtard Rag Print. Notice the date on the cover? "Table of Contents: July 4, 2011" 

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...110704,00.html


That issue will be especially good for starting the coals on the 4th of July BBQ.

----------


## Pericles

The Constitution matters if we make it matter.

----------


## awake

They might as well ask the question in a different way: does the law of the land still matter? Answer at your own risk.

----------


## malkusm

> TIME mag... Libtard Rag Print. Notice the date on the cover? "Table of Contents: July 4, 2011" 
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16...110704,00.html
> 
> 
> That issue will be especially good for starting the coals on the 4th of July BBQ.


I'm not going to give them the pleasure of my hard-earned dollars, however much I'd like to burn one of them.

----------


## Napoleon's Shadow

Lysander Spooner said "The Constitution either gives us the government we have, or is powerless to prevent it."

----------


## Guitarzan

It's not the Constitution that matters. It's the ideas espoused within the Constitution that matter.

----------


## Pericles

> Lysander Spooner said "The Constitution either gives us the government we have, or is powerless to prevent it."


 Same would be true for almost anything - say laws against murder because they happen anyway.

----------


## oyarde

Saw that , what is the circulation on that thing now ?

----------


## AdamT

Does Time still matter?

----------


## Rothbardian Girl

> Apparently it does since Time is allowed by the constitution to continually publish idiotic articles.


Lmfao, good one.  Made me chuckle.

----------


## erowe1

They're a century or so late in breaking this story.

----------


## Acala

Nope.  It doesn't matter anymore because "we" as a nation have rejected the rule of law and opted for the rule of men.  And we shall reap the reward.

----------


## treyfu

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

I think it's a good question to ask.

----------


## erowe1

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


Spooner's premise is true, since it's a tautology. But I don't think his conclusion necessarily follows from it. If it did, then the following syllogism would be equally valid:

"Lysander Spooner has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, he is unfit to exist."

----------


## Travlyr

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Time Magazine's Fourth of July cover symbolizes shredding it? What do they want -- anarchy?

----------


## LibertyEagle

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


Considering that our candidate refers to himself as the CHAMPION OF THE CONSTITUTION, if you're wanting to bash the Constitution, perhaps you should do it elsewhere.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Same would be true for almost anything - say laws against murder because they happen anyway.


 Not really.  Murder laws don't purport to prevent murder.  The Constitution's supporters purport that it limits government (but it fails).

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Not really.  Murder laws don't purport to prevent murder.  The Constitution's supporters purport that it limits government (but it fails).


No they don't and we've been through this upteen times before.  A  piece of paper, by itself, can do nothing WITHOUT the people backing it up.  We were told by our Founders to stay educated and vigilant and *that* is what failed.  

Now, if you want to further elaborate on your hate for our Constitution, please exercise at least a modicum of respect for the self-proclaimed Champion of the Constitution (Ron Paul) and take your argument elsewhere.

----------


## jmdrake

Think of the constitution as a leash for a rabid dog (our government).  As long as we have the rabid dog we need the leash.   As long as we have the rabid dog....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Think of the constitution as a leash for a rabid dog (our government).  As long as we have the rabid dog we need the leash.   As long as we have the rabid dog....


And if that "rabid dog" disappeared, another one would grow up in its place..

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> They might as well ask the question in a different way: does the law of the land still matter? Answer at your own risk.





> Nope.  It doesn't matter anymore because "we" as a nation have rejected the rule of law and opted for the rule of men.  And we shall reap the reward.


This is an after the fact question. They have already succeeded in making the Constitution a living, flexible, debatable, changeable document. Do they believe in the "rule of law"? If you mean do they believe in the intent and/or letter of the law, the answer is "no".

Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No they don't and we've been through this upteen times before.  A  piece of paper, by itself, can do nothing WITHOUT the people backing it up.  We were told by our Founders to stay educated and vigilant and *that* is what failed.  
> 
> Now, if you want to further elaborate on your hate for our Constitution, please exercise at least a modicum of respect for the self-proclaimed Champion of the Constitution (Ron Paul) and take your argument elsewhere.


I don't hate the Constitution.  It simply doesn't work.  I'm fine with you and anyone else being governed Constitutionally and trying to persuade others to agree with you without force-that's your business. (Do you not agree with "social contract theory"?  I was under the impression that you did.  Adherents to this theory are the primary targets of my previous comment.) It's when you insist that others be governed by the Constitutional regime without their explicit permission that I have a problem.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Time Magazine's Fourth of July cover symbolizes shredding it? What do they want -- anarchy?


See my post above for what they want.

----------


## falconplayer11

> I don't hate the Constitution.  It simply doesn't work.  I'm fine with you and anyone else being governed Constitutionally and trying to persuade others to agree with you without force-that's your business.  It's when you insist that others be governed by the Constitutional regime without their explicit permission that I have a problem.


What exactly do you not like about the Constitution? And I don't mean just the way it's interpreted today...what's your problem with the way it is written? Why would you have any reason to not like it?

----------


## falconplayer11

And Time is right...it doesn't matter anymore. That's the problem.

----------


## jmdrake

> And if that "rabid dog" disappeared, another one would grow up in its place..


Maybe.  Maybe not.  What "rabid dog" was in place under the Articles of Confederation?

----------


## jmdrake

> What exactly do you not like about the Constitution? And I don't mean just the way it's interpreted today...what's your problem with the way it is written? Why would you have any reason to not like it?


Well the antifederalists didn't like it because they thought that it would create an all powerful federal government that would eventually throw off any restraints that were initially placed on it.  Of course we know they were wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

This scares me even more than if he had said, "The Constitution can go to hell!" because at least then, maybe people wouldn't take him seriously.  It's the little-by-little steering of the American attitude toward the idea of trading the law of the land for "safety and security" under an all-encompassing, monolithic government that scares me.  When you can see through the agenda, it makes it that much more insidious.

----------


## Pericles

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


 As anarchy was the original state of man, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government  as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it  is unfit to exist.

Seriously, can't the lot of you think out the logical consequences of what you advocate?

----------


## Travlyr

> This is an after the fact question. They have already succeeded in making the Constitution a living, flexible, debatable, changeable document. Do they beleive in the "rule of law"? If you mean do they beleive in the intent and/or letter of the law, the answer is "no".
> 
> Here's what they do beleive in: they beleive in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.
> 
> They beleive in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.
> 
> The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.


This is well said. Yes, the ruling class has it made until they are forced to obey the supreme law of the land.

It is interesting that Time Magazine would find it appropriate to shred the Constitution on the 4th of July while the "Champion of the Constitution" is gaining a strong foothold for President of the United States of America. 

Ron Paul 2012!

----------


## Pericles

> I don't hate the Constitution.  It simply doesn't work.  I'm fine with you and anyone else being governed Constitutionally and trying to persuade others to agree with you without force-that's your business. (Do you not agree with "social contract theory"?  I was under the impression that you did.  Adherents to this theory are the primary targets of my previous comment.) It's when you insist that others be governed by the Constitutional regime without their explicit permission that I have a problem.


If your roof leaks, and you don't fix it, it is not the fault of your hammer.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well the antifederalists didn't like it because they thought that it would create an all powerful federal government that would eventually throw off any restraints that were initially placed on it.  Of course we know they were wrong.


Of course the Constitution isn't perfect.  It's kind of like Santa Claus.  People have to believe in it for it to make a difference.  It only works with an educated public that knows the role of government and can keep it in check.  That's what we're trying to do now.  I believe Madison didn't like the idea of a senate because it amounted to the minority ruling over the majority.  I think he may have had a point, but the anti-federalists didn't want the small states to get trampled, so that's why we have that.  The best we can do is realize that we, the people, are the government, and the senators, presidents, Congressman, are all our servants.  If people knew all this, there would be 535 Rand Pauls on Capitol Hill.

----------


## sorianofan

Sadly, the Constitution was not obeyed even in the 1790s.  Secessionists (sorry ****) also used unconstitutional arguments to justify their beliefs up from the time of nullification to the 1860s.  The Constitution states clearly that it is the law of the land and speaks of Federal power to put down "Domestic Violence" (aka rebellions.) 

Ironically, the Constitutional heyday was probably Reconstruction.  Instead of aimlessly asserting Federal power, 3 amendments were passed that very obviously and Constitutionally increased Federal authority and reduced State sovereignty (i.e. expanding 1st amendment rights to the state and local level, which was never the intent of the First Amendment.)

It was probably beginning in the 1880s or so that we slipped back into disregarding the Constitution, with the reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to assist in union busting (which the 14th amendment had nothing to do with unions or corporations.)  The Constitution made a massive comeback beginning in 1920 as a response to Progressive Era overreaching, but ended with the ascendancy of Herbert Hoover.  Quite frankly, jurisprudence has run roughshod over the Constitution ever since.


The Constitution is not a "guard rail," it is a trusted agreed upon standard for governance.  And, it should be asserted as the only law of the land, not convoluted jurisprudence.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If your roof leaks, and you don't fix it, it is not the fault of your hammer.


 I never believed a hammer by itself could fix a roof.  A carpenter does.  To follow your analogy, the "carpenters" who "built" the Constitution did shoddy work.  Thus, the "customers" (the rest of us) shouldn't be forced to pay for it (live under it).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> As anarchy was the original state of man, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government  as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it  is unfit to exist.
> 
> Seriously, can't the lot of you think out the logical consequences of what you advocate?


Not a reasonable counter-argument.  Anarchy doesn't actively seek to "prevent" government.  (It is simply the natural state of man)  Archists foist governments upon others, whether they agree with it or not (so far in history).

----------


## erowe1

> Sadly, the Constitution was not obeyed even in the 1790s.  Secessionists (sorry ****) also used unconstitutional arguments to justify their beliefs up from the time of nullification to the 1860s.  The Constitution states clearly that it is the law of the land and speaks of Federal power to put down "Domestic Violence" (aka rebellions.) 
> 
> Ironically, the Constitutional heyday was probably Reconstruction.  Instead of aimlessly asserting Federal power, 3 amendments were passed that very obviously and Constitutionally increased Federal authority and reduced State sovereignty (i.e. expanding 1st amendment rights to the state and local level, which was never the intent of the First Amendment.)
> 
> It was probably beginning in the 1880s or so that we slipped back into disregarding the Constitution, with the reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to assist in union busting (which the 14th amendment had nothing to do with unions or corporations.)  The Constitution made a massive comeback beginning in 1920 as a response to Progressive Era overreaching, but ended with the ascendancy of Herbert Hoover.  Quite frankly, jurisprudence has run roughshod over the Constitution ever since.
> 
> 
> The Constitution is not a "guard rail," it is a trusted agreed upon standard for governance.  And, it should be asserted as the only law of the land, not convoluted jurisprudence.


I don't think the Constitution prohibits secession. But if it does, then it's the Constitution that's wrong, not the secessionists. Natural law trumps the Constitution, and no one has a right to rule over others by conquest.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think the Constitution prohibits secession. But if it does, then it's the Constitution that's wrong, not the secessionists. Natural law trumps the Constitution, and no one has a right to rule over others by conquest.


Using that logic America has no right to exist.  After all, these folks were ruled over by conquest.



And the secessionists were so into natural law and states rights that the wrote into the confederate constitution a provision barring states from having the right to end slavery.

----------


## erowe1

> Using that logic America has no right to exist.  After all, these folks were ruled over by conquest.
> 
> 
> 
> And the secessionists were so into natural law and states rights that the wrote into the confederate constitution a provision barring states from having the right to end slavery.


When you say "America has no right to exist" do you mean that the American people have no right to exist? Or do you mean that the regime that subjugates them has no right to exist?

If you mean the latter, then I agree, that does logically follow what I said. If you mean the former, I don't see it.

I'm not an apologist for the Confederacy, just for their right to secede.

----------


## Pericles

> I never believed a hammer by itself could fix a roof.  A carpenter does.  To follow your analogy, the "carpenters" who "built" the Constitution did shoddy work.  Thus, the "customers" (the rest of us) shouldn't be forced to pay for it (live under it).


   The Constitution is the tool to be used by the people to protect their rights. When not used (via the 2A and others), rights are not protected because the people fail to act. The fault is not with the Constitution, rather than with the people who tolerate usurpation. just as previous generations of anarchists were not able to preserve whatever it was they were doing. The could not resist being conquered by others who had a more centralized society.

----------


## jmdrake

> When you say "America has no right to exist" do you mean that the American people have no right to exist? Or do you mean that the regime that subjugates them has no right to exist?
> 
> If you mean the latter, then I agree, that does logically follow what I said. If you mean the former, I don't see it.


I'm saying that this nation exists because the native Americans were conquered.  And that goes for the individual states that later attempted to secede.  I wonder how many people who talk about property rights stop to think about who probably initially owned their property?  And yes, nomads can have a concept of property rights too and not all Indians were nomads.




> I'm not an apologist for the Confederacy, just for their right to secede.


You were making a natural rights argument.  But to assert your natural rights one must come with "clean hands".  The secessionists were asserting the secession right in part because they wanted to deny the natural right of slaves to be free.  And when they set up their confederate constitution, they denied states within their confederacy the "states right" to ban slavery.  Further it's interesting that many people here (not you per say) who support the right of states to secede from the U.S. get bent out of shape over the people in West Virginia exercising their natural right to secede from Virginia.  Either there is a natural right of a secession or there isn't.  If there is then John Brown shouldn't have needed to start an uprising.  The slaves he was trying to free should have just been given their "natural right" to secede.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm saying that this nation exists because the native Americans were conquered.  And that goes for the individual states that later attempted to secede.  I wonder how many people who talk about property rights stop to think about who probably initially owned their property?  And yes, nomads can have a concept of property rights too and not all Indians were nomads.
> 
> 
> 
> You were making a natural rights argument.  But to assert your natural rights one must come with "clean hands".  The secessionists were asserting the secession right in part because they wanted to deny the natural right of slaves to be free.  And when they set up their confederate constitution, they denied states within their confederacy the "states right" to ban slavery.  Further it's interesting that many people here (not you per say) who support the right of states to secede from the U.S. get bent out of shape over the people in West Virginia exercising their natural right to secede from Virginia.  Either there is a natural right of a secession or there isn't.  If there is then John Brown shouldn't have needed to start an uprising.  The slaves he was trying to free should have just been given their "natural right" to secede.


My natural rights argument was about the abstract concept, not a particular historical example. The way I would apply it to the Confederacy would be to say that, whether they were right to do it or not (and I make no claim that they were), once they seceded, the regime in Washington had no right to subdue them. If speeding the end of slavery were that regime's primary goal, then I think there were other things it would have tried before trying to claim that war was its only recourse.

Edit: Incidentally, when you use the word "nation," it's not entirely obvious what you mean by that. The thirteen colonies weren't a nation. They didn't claim to become a nation when they seceded from the British Empire. The Constitution never called them a nation, only a plurality of states. I don't think it was until well into the 19th century that it became common to call the USA a nation, and my hunch is that the events surrounding the Civil War had a lot to do with that (though I'm not sure). If there's any sense to calling the USA a nation now, it's only because we are united as a nation by the way we're all subjugated to the same regime in Washington. So we would be back to saying that that regime wouldn't exist, which I agree with.

----------


## jmdrake

> My natural rights argument was about the abstract concept, not a particular historical example. The way I would apply it to the Confederacy would be to say that, whether they were right to do it or not (and I make no claim that they were), once they seceded, the regime in Washington had no right to subdue them. If speeding the end of slavery were that regime's primary goal, then I think there were other things it would have tried before trying to claim that war was its only recourse.


Then you support John Brown's insurrection?  Once he started it the federal government and the state he was in had no right to do anything about it?  Why draw the line on the "right of secession" at the state boundary?  As for ending slavery, while that wasn't the initial goal of Lincoln, he did try compensated emancipation in the slave states that didn't secede but without success.  Compensated emancipation did happen in Washington D.C., but D.C. doesn't have home rule.  Anyway to a certain extent "natural rights" are a bunch of claptrap and this is a good example of why.  We can debate all day about woulda, coulda, shoulda, but that's got nothing to do with what *is* (or in that case "was").  The fact is/was that the south didn't have the military/economic strength to assert their claims.  And John Brown, Nat Turner and others didn't have the military strength to assert their positions either.  The Indians also lacked the unity, technology and economic strength to assert their natural rights to the land they had before the Europeans came.  But on top of all of that people want to put a thin veneer of natural rights snake oil as if that somehow makes everything "right".  It doesn't.  Natural rights arguments let you assert moral superiority *but only if the party they are being asserted for came to the table with clean hands*.  If they didn't then it's just sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.

----------


## erowe1

> Then you support John Brown's insurrection?  Once he started it the federal government and the state he was in had no right to do anything about it?  Why draw the line on the "right of secession" at the state boundary?


I don't draw it at a state boundary. It's a natural right that each and every individual has. I don't think that the military superiority any given regime has over them gives that regime the right to rule them.

I don't think compensated emancipation was the only thing Lincoln would have tried if he had wanted to speed the end of slavery without imposing his rule on people without their consent. Throughout his entire tenure, the Constitution included this:




> No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.


If the Union states had wanted to expunge that by amending the Constitution, they should have been able to do that, once the votes of the Confederate states would no longer have been there to prevent them. They also could have completely outlawed slavery in the Union. And then the entire Union could have become a place for refugee slaves to flee, so they wouldn't have to go all the way to Canada. If the Confederacy chose to respond to this with an offensive war to subjugate the Union states to its control, then the Union would have been right to fight for its own independence, and it would have won a war under those circumstances more decisively than it won the Civil War. But the Union didn't try those things. It went to war against the confederate states to "preserve the Union" while still having its own slavery and while still prohibiting free states from being places of refuge for runaway slaves.

----------


## Ex Lux lucis

> The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Time Magazine's Fourth of July cover symbolizes shredding it? What do they want -- anarchy?

----------


## Travlyr

Yeah, well as far as I am concerned, the globalists can have their world government ... as long as it gives no power to anyone other than each individual.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't draw it at a state boundary. It's a natural right that each and every individual has. I don't think that the military superiority any given regime has over them gives that regime the right to rule them.


A state is not an individual.  It's a collectivist construct.  And in this case the collectivist construct of the southern states seceded in large part to deny others their natural rights.




> I don't think compensated emancipation was the only thing Lincoln would have tried if he had wanted to speed the end of slavery without imposing his rule on people without their consent. Throughout his entire tenure, the Constitution included this:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Union states had wanted to expunge that by amending the Constitution, they should have been able to do that, once the votes of the Confederate states would no longer have been there to prevent them. They also could have completely outlawed slavery in the Union. And then the entire Union could have become a place for refugee slaves to flee, so they wouldn't have to go all the way to Canada. If the Confederacy chose to respond to this with an offensive war to subjugate the Union states to its control, then the Union would have been right to fight for its own independence, and it would have won a war under those circumstances more decisively than it won the Civil War. But the Union didn't try those things. It went to war against the confederate states to "preserve the Union" while still having its own slavery and while still prohibiting free states from being places of refuge for runaway slaves.


Maybe that would have worked, maybe it wouldn't have.  But that's not the point.  You can't legitimately assert a natural rights defense in pursuant of denying others their natural rights.  That's all I'm saying.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm saying that this nation exists because the native Americans were conquered.  And that goes for the individual states that later attempted to secede.  I wonder how many people who talk about property rights stop to think about who probably initially owned their property?  And yes, nomads can have a concept of property rights too and not all Indians were nomads.


Not again  Argh.  The Indians did not own the land.  They didn't settle it, nor did they own it.  It was against most of their beliefs to do so.

And yeah, I have enough Indian in me that I could check the box if I wanted to.

This guilt crap is just that... CRAP.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not again  Argh.  The Indians did not own the land.  They didn't settle it, nor did they own it.  It was against most of their beliefs to do so.
> 
> And yeah, I have enough Indian in me that I could check the box if I wanted to.
> 
> This guilt crap is just that... CRAP.


 I take it you've never heard of the "civilized tribes" that actually did own land? 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes

But let's go with the argument that they didn't.  Does that give others the right to kill them and/or kick them off land they had been using for generations just because they brought the "superior idea" of land ownership?  It's not "guilt crap".  It's fact.  When the Romans took over parts of Britain many of the British tribes were living the same way native Americans lived when this land was conquered.  That didn't make the Roman Empire justified in what they did.  And you could be full blood Indian for all I care.  That doesn't make your argument right.

Further it looks like you didn't even read the context of the statement before responding out of ignorance.  Ewowe1 had said that under natural law no one had a right to rule over someone else through conquest.  Whatever you think of Indians and their concept of property, there is no doubting the fact that they were beaten into submission through conquest.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Constitution is the tool to be used by the people to protect their rights. *When not used (via the 2A and others), rights are not protected because the people fail to act. The fault is not with the Constitution, rather than with the people who tolerate usurpation.* just as previous generations of anarchists were not able to preserve whatever it was they were doing. The could not resist being conquered by others who had a more centralized society.


This is blaming the victim.  It is not reasonable to expect the people to govern the government.  The fault is with the Constitution, though indirectly.  It sets up a power system that is easily exploitable, and offers people no way to defend themselves from tyrants (nor a way to directly counter tyranny).  It also does not offer individuals or groups a way to remove themselves from its authority if they do not like the regime.  The fault is in fact with the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights was a valiant effort to correct it, but still fell short of keeping the regime voluntary and in check.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I take it you've never heard of the "civilized tribes" that actually did own land?


No, I never heard of the "civilized tribe" categorization by the government.  I was only born and raised in Oklahoma.  




> But let's go with the argument that they didn't.  Does that give others the right to kill them and/or kick them off land they had been using for generations just because they brought the "superior idea" of land ownership?  It's not "guilt crap".  It's fact.  When the Romans took over parts of Britain many of the British tribes were living the same way native Americans lived when this land was conquered.  That didn't make the Roman Empire justified in what they did.  And you could be full blood Indian for all I care.  That doesn't make your argument right.


For centuries, land has been fought for and won.  The same way as we fought for and won Texas from Mexico.  Do you feel guilty about that too?  

Hell no, I don't like what the U.S. government did about the treaties.  But, they long ago wrongly, in my opinion, paid off in  huge sums of money, anyone who could prove their Indian heritage and wanted to claim the money from people who didn't have a damn thing to do with it.

Enough of the guilt bull$#@!.

Our country doesn't have a perfect history, no.  But, it's a damn sight better than any other country in the history of the world.  It is well worth fighting for and last time I checked, that is why most of us gathered here.

----------


## erowe1

> A state is not an individual.  It's a collectivist construct.  And in this case the collectivist construct of the southern states seceded in large part to deny others their natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that would have worked, maybe it wouldn't have.  But that's not the point.  You can't legitimately assert a natural rights defense in pursuant of denying others their natural rights.  That's all I'm saying.


I tried to be make it as clear as possible that I wasn't defending the Confederacy, only the abstract concept of secession.

I agree that the Confederacy was wrong to impose slavery on people unjustly. But that doesn't mean that the Union was right to subjugate them, and it didn't just  subjugate states, but also all the individuals who lived in those states with or without those individuals' consents.

I don't think I can buy the clean hands argument. That just strikes me as a variation on two wrongs making a right. I don't think Saddam Hussein had clean hands, but I also don't think that the regime in DC was in the right when it conquered Iraq, and it wouldn't have been in the right to do that even if liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein were the main reason. If some social injustice is going on somewhere, and I feel compelled to act in some way to end that injustice, I don't get a free pass to do things that are unethical just because the thing I'm fighting against is also unethical.

----------


## Pericles

> .............  It is not reasonable to expect the people to govern the government. ...........


That statement gets - :collins::collins::collins::collins::collins:

----------


## jmdrake

> For centuries, land has been fought for and won.  The same way as we fought for and won Texas from Mexico.  Do you feel guilty about that too?  
> 
> Hell no, I don't like what the U.S. government did about the treaties.  But, they long ago wrongly, in my opinion, paid off in  huge sums of money, anyone who could prove their Indian heritage and wanted to claim the money from people who didn't have a damn thing to do with it.
> 
> Enough of the guilt bull$#@!.
> 
> Our country doesn't have a perfect history, no.  But, it's a damn sight better than any other country in the history of the world.  It is well worth fighting for and last time I checked, that is why most of us gathered here.


Oh go blow it out your ear!  Where did I say anything about guilt?  Maybe you're feeling guilty so that's why you're responding that way.  After all "the guilty flee though no one pursues".  Someone made a point about how "natural law" means nobody should be able to rule by conquest.  I made the *counter point* (maybe you don't understand what that means) that this country was taken over by conquest.  It's a fact.  It's not my opinion.  It's not a call for "guilt" or anything else.

That said, I'm gathered here to keep this country from doing anything else worse than what it's done recently.  And if I was living in another country I'd be doing the same thing (trying to keep that country from doing anything worse).  I don't have to appeal to faux patriotism to do my job.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Fair enough.

----------


## jmdrake

> I tried to be make it as clear as possible that I wasn't defending the Confederacy, only the abstract concept of secession.
> 
> I agree that the Confederacy was wrong to impose slavery on people unjustly. But that doesn't mean that the Union was right to subjugate them, and it didn't just  subjugate states, but also all the individuals who lived in those states with or without those individuals' consents.
> 
> I don't think I can buy the clean hands argument. That just strikes me as a variation on two wrongs making a right. I don't think Saddam Hussein had clean hands, but I also don't think that the regime in DC was in the right when it conquered Iraq, and it wouldn't have been in the right to do that even if liberating the Iraqi people from Hussein were the main reason. If some social injustice is going on somewhere, and I feel compelled to act in some way to end that injustice, I don't get a free pass to do things that are unethical just because the thing I'm fighting against is also unethical.


Apples and oranges.  We had no legitimate reason to be in Iraq period.  No constitutional reason, no "U.N." reason (which is illegitimate anyway), no treaty reason, none whatsoever.  You were making the argument that *even* if the civil war was constitutional (and I will agree with those who say that's at least questionable) that somehow based on "natural law" there was no right to enforce the constitution.  I simply disagree.

----------


## jmdrake

> rofl


Well maybe I've added years to your life because laughter is the best medicine.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well maybe I've added years to your life because laughter is the best medicine.


My, you're quick.  I changed it right after I posted it.    No, I understand your argument.  I guess I've seen so much of the guilt-tripping over the Indians that I overreacted to it.

----------


## awake

Some day, when our knowledge grows to out strip our fear, we will turn over the defense of our god given liberties to the marketplace. Like all other goods that we desperately seek, the market is the only method that needs no monopolist and secures an ever improving supply of any good (even personal justice and security), but we have a lot of people who love to control the lives of others, they think that they can make a heaven on earth if only they could be bestowed with the power to force all the others to their will. Once these ignoramuses get it, that they are simply preventing a better world for everybody, we might make some headway a little faster than we are, but it might be awhile.

Humans freely exchanging have accomplished real miracles in spite of these regressives, and will continue to due so long as their paralyzing and parasitical numbers do not collapse the host. Big government means big trouble.

----------


## erowe1

> Apples and oranges.  We had no legitimate reason to be in Iraq period.  No constitutional reason, no "U.N." reason (which is illegitimate anyway), no treaty reason, none whatsoever.  You were making the argument that *even* if the civil war was constitutional (and I will agree with those who say that's at least questionable) that somehow based on "natural law" there was no right to enforce the constitution.  I simply disagree.


But if you think the Civil War was right according to natural law, then why should it matter if it was constitutional?

And if it was right according to natural law, then why wouldn't the same argument apply to any regime that takes upon itself the responsibility of conquering any other country anywhere in order to right some wrong there?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Some day, when our knowledge grows to out strip our fear, we will turn over the defense of our god given liberties to the marketplace. Like all other goods that we desperately seek, the market is the only method that needs no monopolist and secures an ever improving supply of any good (even personal justice and security), but we have a lot of people who love to control the lives of others, they think that they can make a heaven on earth if only they could be bestowed with the power to force all the others to their will, so it might be awhile.
> 
> Humans freely exchanging have accomplished real miracles in spite of these regressives, and will continue to due so long as their paralyzing and parasitical numbers do not collapse the host. Big government means big trouble.


You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

----------


## jmdrake

> But if you think the Civil War was right according to natural law, then why should it matter if it was constitutional?


I think you're confusing who's making what argument.  You're making the argument that secessionists had a natural rights claim to secede.  I'm making the argument that A) natural rights are BS anyway and B) even if they are valid *you can't claim them if you are violating them at the same time*.

Look at it another way.  Say if a parent was actively killing their children in the "privacy of their own home".  Using your logic, nobody else should be able to intervene if the parents exercised their natural right to secede their home from the rest of society.  After all if right of secession extends all the way down to the individual level, then certainly it extends down to the parent level.  Now of course if the child is strong enough to extend its "natural right" then it can fight back.  If not its just dead meat in the world constructed from your logic and there are no legitimate external repercussions.  




> And if it was right according to natural law, then why wouldn't the same argument apply to any regime that takes upon itself the responsibility of conquering any other country anywhere in order to right some wrong there?


Again, I'm not making the natural right argument.  You are.  I'm saying you can't legitimately make that argument on behalf of someone using his natural rights to suppress the natural rights of others.  The reason we have no business intervening in some place like Iraq isn't because Saddam Hussein had a natural right to kill his own people.  It's because it was none of our business.  By contrast the U.S. constitution had a provision that the federal government should insure the states have a "republican form of government".  That means states don't have the right to suppress others natural rights.

----------


## osan

> Provocative? Perhaps, but thats nothing new for Time magazine with a history of taking iconic American symbols and using them to make political statements.
> 
> On Thursday on MSNBCs Morning Joe, Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks does the document still matter. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think, Stengel said on Morning Joe. People all the time are debating whats constitutional and whats unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. Its for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. Its not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center. And what our politics are about  politics are about conflict. There was no people who argued more about defining principles of America than the framers of the Constitution. They argued both sides of the most powerful issues in American history  slavery, states rights, central government. So to say that what did the framers want is kind of a crazy question, I have to say. I write about that in the piece.
> 
> Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/ti...#ixzz1Q8JHVAVA


No wonder Time is going out of business.  They hire imbeciles to write for them.

----------


## RonPaulGetsIt

Time is old media.

Once he last of the old dentists retire and don't buy it anymore for their waiting room, no one will be left who even knows what it is.

Good riddance.

----------


## erowe1

> Again, I'm not making the natural right argument.


I have trouble seeing how you can think that you're not making a natural rights argument. What was the whole clean hands business if not a natural rights argument?

I get what you're saying, except the part about natural rights being BS, which I didn't know you believed, and unless I missed it, this is the first time you said that in this conversation.

But, given the premise that natural rights aren't BS (and "natural rights" is just another way of saying "absolute morality"), then what you said about the fact of the South's disregarding natural rights (which I agree with you on), being something that legitimized the North's subjugation of them doesn't follow. Just because some people in the South did wrong, that didn't give other people in the North the right to do other wrongs to other people who lived in the South.

Your example about parents killing their children is a difficult question to me. I don't know when it becomes my business to intervene in some act of evil like that. I don't think I have a general obligation to go around the world rescuing victims from evil. Perhaps I only have the obligation under certain circumstances. But even under those circumstances, whatever they may be, my obligation to intervene would only pertain to those specific individuals, not some collective group they belong to, or all the people living in some territory with them. And even if I did have that obligation, I still would not have the right to involve other people in helping me without their consent by doing things like conscripting them into my army, taxing them, or regulating their speech and businesses in such ways as to make my job of intervening easier.

Your final point doesn't solve the problem. Given that the regime in DC had no business rescuing innocent Iraqis from Hussein, how can it be the case that the regime in DC in the 19th century had any business taking over the South in order to make sure they had republican forms of government? If the regime doesn't have that right naturally, it can't get that right from the Constitution. Or, if it can, from where did the Constitution get that right in order to give it to the regime in DC?

And this is before even addressing the fact that the North's aggression against the South was not directed only against slave holders, but against every person there, and the fact that the outcome of the war was not to install a republican form of government, but to appoint rulers over the subdued states and prohibit them from electing politicians who didn't submit to the regime.

----------


## jmdrake

> My, you're quick.  I changed it right after I posted it.    No, I understand your argument.  I guess I've seen so much of the guilt-tripping over the Indians that I overreacted to it.


Fair enough.    I was too harsh in my initial response to you.  I should have pointed out that I don't believe in generational guilt anyway.  I don't think today's German should feel guilty over the holocaust or that the prime minister of Japan needs to continue to apologize for Japanese WW II evils either.

----------


## sorianofan

> I don't think the Constitution prohibits secession. But if it does, then it's the Constitution that's wrong, not the secessionists. Natural law trumps the Constitution, and no one has a right to rule over others by conquest.


True.  The Revolution was opposed to the rule of law.  But, suppressing rebellion is not unconstitutional.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have trouble seeing how you can think that you're not making a natural rights argument. What was the whole clean hands business if not a natural rights argument?


Okay.  I'm going to try to nail this down for you one last time.  If *you* are going to raise a natural rights argument (and *you* did) then the counter to that argument is that the person you are asserting it for must have clean hands.  "Natural rights" are merely another way of saying what *you* think is morally right.  There is no "natural rights supreme court"  you can appeal to.  And people disagree on what "natural rights" really are.




> I get what you're saying, except the part about natural rights being BS, which I didn't know you believed, and unless I missed it, this is the first time you said that in this conversation.


Natural rights are okay from an aspirational sense.  But they are BS in the way you and others here attempt to use them.  




> But, given the premise that natural rights aren't BS (and "natural rights" is just another way of saying "absolute morality"), then what you said about the fact of the South's disregarding natural rights (which I agree with you on), being something that legitimized the North's subjugation of them doesn't follow. Just because some people in the South did wrong, that didn't give other people in the North the right to do other wrongs to other people who lived in the South.


Cry me a bloody river.  For the record, most southerners benefited long term from the outcome of the civil war whether they are willing to admit it or not.  Read about the history of Birmingham Alabama for instance.  It never would have become the "Pittsburgh of the south" without slavery ending and opening up a industrial labor market.  Further the rich planters who voted for secession didn't give a flip about the poor whites they conscripted to fight it.  Yep, contrary to popular belief, Lincoln wasn't the first to implement a draft.  http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/condraft.html  So what about subjection of white southerners by white southerners?  The rich planters cared even less about these people than they did slaves.  The death of a slave was at least an economic loss.  That's why when the south seceded, some areas of the south seceded from the south.




> Your example about parents killing their children is a difficult question to me. I don't know when it becomes my business to intervene in some act of evil like that. *I don't think I have a general obligation to go around the world rescuing victims from evil.* Perhaps I only have the obligation under certain circumstances. But even under those circumstances, whatever they may be, my obligation to intervene would only pertain to those specific individuals, not some collective group they belong to, or all the people living in some territory with them. And even if I did have that obligation, I still would not have the right to involve other people in helping me without their consent by doing things like conscripting them into my army, taxing them, or regulating their speech and businesses in such ways as to make my job of intervening easier.


I put the most important part of your quote in bold.  You're right.  There is no obligation to go *around the world*.  There's a saying "charity starts at home".  Well so does justice.  Let's say if my "Parents killing their children" argument was parents in Iraq or Sudan or even France.  I would feel *no* obligation to intervene.  I would pray for the kids.  If there was something I could do short of military/police force to enact change I would do it.  But that's it.  On the other hand if I *knew* for a fact that may neighbor was killing his kids I'd at least call the cops.  Yes I know in general that's a bad idea.  But I'd make an exception.  You see the problem with your earlier Iraq example is that it is *around the world*.  We had no contract with the Iraqi people, not treaty, no nothing.  Iraq had never agreed to live by our rules.  We have neither the capacity nor the authority to intervene in every country on the planet for humanitarian reasons so why intervene in *any* country for humanitarian reasons?




> Your final point doesn't solve the problem. Given that the regime in DC had no business rescuing innocent Iraqis from Hussein, how can it be the case that the regime in DC in the 19th century had any business taking over the South in order to make sure they had Republican forms of government? If the regime doesn't have that right naturally, it can't get that right from the Constitution. Or, if it can, from where did the Constitution get that right in order to give it to the regime in DC?


Read page 2 of Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined" where he says:

_If a state legalized infanticide it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government which is required by the constitution._

Now granted, were talking about slavery and not infanticide.  But the "republican form of government" principle is still the same.  By contrast Iraq had no relationship with the U.S. constitution under which it was required to maintain a republican form of government.




> And this is before even addressing the fact that the North's aggression against the South was not directed only against slave holders, but against every person there, and the fact that the outcome of the war was not to install a republican form of government, but to appoint rulers over the subdued states and prohibit them from electing politicians who didn't submit to the regime.


FTR the south fired first (Ft Sumpter).  But all of that is irrelevant.  Also the outcome was not to "appoint rulers".  The natural outcome of giving voting rights to ex slaves and stripping them from people active in the rebellion was predictable, but that didn't last long.  During the reconstruction period, one of the main tasks of the freedman's bureaus was to try to protect the contract rights of ex slaves.  You see the former owners were used to free labor from them, felt that should continue, and would make agreements for work where they would promise to pay later then welch on the deal.  I can fax you documentation of that if you like.

Last point.  I don't think the north was 100% morally right by a long shot.  Lincoln did abuse his power as president.  And Sherman's "total war" was unjustifiable.  But the planters decisions to bring the nation to war was also immoral not just to the slaves that they wanted to keep, but also to the free poor whites who they taxed and conscripted (IOW forced into slavery) for their own selfish ends.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Some day, when our knowledge grows to out strip our fear, we will turn over the defense of our god given liberties to the marketplace. Like all other goods that we desperately seek, the market is the only method that needs no monopolist and secures an ever improving supply of any good (even personal justice and security), but we have a lot of people who love to control the lives of others, they think that they can make a heaven on earth if only they could be bestowed with the power to force all the others to their will. Once these ignoramuses get it, that they are simply preventing a better world for everybody, we might make some headway a little faster than we are, but it might be awhile.
> 
> Humans freely exchanging have accomplished real miracles in spite of these regressives, and will continue to due so long as their paralyzing and parasitical numbers do not collapse the host. Big government means big trouble.


 +rep

----------


## Theocrat

Yes, the Constitution still matters. When voters fail to read it and the federal government fails to obey it, then we have the kind of government we see today.

If the Constitution doesn't matter, then our public officials should no longer be required to give an oath of office. They should skip that and just do whatever it is they want, and we won't have any grounds to hold them accountable nor tell them they are wrong for passing/executing legislation which violates our rights.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay.  I'm going to try to nail this down for you one last time.  If *you* are going to raise a natural rights argument (and *you* did) then the counter to that argument is that the person you are asserting it for must have clean hands.  "Natural rights" are merely another way of saying what *you* think is morally right.  There is no "natural rights supreme court"  you can appeal to.  And people disagree on what "natural rights" really are.


I still don't follow this. You may not agree that there exist such things as absolute right and wrong, and that might be part of why we seem to be talking past each other here. But given the premise that such things do exist, how do you get the stipulation that when you do something wrong to someone I get to do something wrong to you and others?




> Cry me a bloody river.  For the record, most southerners benefited long term from the outcome of the civil war whether they are willing to admit it or not.


Again, nothing I've said has been intended to defend the South. I agree that the institution of slavery made them worse off economically. It's precisely because of this that I think slavery was bound to end with or without a Civil War, especially if the North had ended it there. I see the historical question of what the lives of southerners, both black and white, would have turned out like had the Civil War never happened as impossible to answer. But I don't think that the ethics of the Civil War depends on the answer to that either.




> Read page 2 of Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined" where he says:
> 
> _If a state legalized infanticide it could be charged with not maintaining a republican form of government which is required by the constitution._
> 
> Now granted, were talking about slavery and not infanticide.  But the "republican form of government" principle is still the same.  By contrast Iraq had no relationship with the U.S. constitution under which it was required to maintain a republican form of government.


That doesn't answer my question. Where does the federal government get the authority to force anyone to have a republican form of government? You seem to be saying that they get it from the Constitution. But where does the Constitution get the authority in the first place, so as to grant it to the federal government? If it is illegitimate to use force to install a republican form of government in Iraq, I don't see how taking over Iraq would all of a sudden become legitimate just by writing something in the Constitution asserting that what was illegitimate before is legitimate now.

If some of our states failed to have republican forms of government (and I would argue that none of the states have ever in their histories had such a thing, but for the sake of argument we can pretend otherwise), and if the rest of the union wanted to stand by the requirement that they all have a republican form of government, then the only recourse they would have would be to expel that state from the union, or to let it secede. Once that happened, there would be nothing that would make it any more legitimate to take over that state than it was to take over Iraq.

I really don't think you can get away from natural law in answering this. Either it is morally right to take over such a country, or it is not. If it is not, then it doesn't matter if it's constitutional, nor if that country has clean hands.

----------


## erowe1

> I put the most important part of your quote in bold.  You're right.  There is no obligation to go *around the world*.  There's a saying "charity starts at home".  Well so does justice.  Let's say if my "Parents killing their children" argument was parents in Iraq or Sudan or even France.  I would feel *no* obligation to intervene.  I would pray for the kids.  If there was something I could do short of military/police force to enact change I would do it.  But that's it.  On the other hand if I *knew* for a fact that may neighbor was killing his kids I'd at least call the cops.  Yes I know in general that's a bad idea.  But I'd make an exception.  You see the problem with your earlier Iraq example is that it is *around the world*.  We had no contract with the Iraqi people, not treaty, no nothing.  Iraq had never agreed to live by our rules.  We have neither the capacity nor the authority to intervene in every country on the planet for humanitarian reasons so why intervene in *any* country for humanitarian reasons?


You say "Iraq had never agreed to live by our rules." That's true. "Iraq" is an abstraction, not a person with a mind capable of agreeing to anything. Even if there ever were some sense in which "Iraq" had agreed to live by our rules, it could only have been the regime that rules over the Iraqi people purporting to enter such an agreement on their behalf, which it could have no right to do; it wouldn't be each and every individual Iraqi. So I don't see how contracts or treaties could make a difference. If your conclusion is correct, that I have no authority to intervene for humanitarian reasons in any country, then I don't see how I could attain that authority just by writing it down on some treaty, contract, constitution, or whatever. Nor could I attain that authority if some third party, claiming to represent the people of that county, signed such a contract on their behalf, unless every individual in that country had delegated that authority to that third party. So, in the end, I'm left unable to see how the principle that made it wrong to intervene in Iraq wouldn't have also made it wrong to intervene against the Confederate States.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then you support John Brown's insurrection?  Once he started it the federal government and the state he was in had no right to do anything about it?  Why draw the line on the "right of secession" at the state boundary?  As for ending slavery, while that wasn't the initial goal of Lincoln, he did try compensated emancipation in the slave states that didn't secede but without success.  Compensated emancipation did happen in Washington D.C., but D.C. doesn't have home rule.  Anyway to a certain extent "natural rights" are a bunch of claptrap and this is a good example of why.  We can debate all day about woulda, coulda, shoulda, but that's got nothing to do with what *is* (or in that case "was").  The fact is/was that the south didn't have the military/economic strength to assert their claims.  And John Brown, Nat Turner and others didn't have the military strength to assert their positions either.  The Indians also lacked the unity, technology and economic strength to assert their natural rights to the land they had before the Europeans came.  But on top of all of that people want to put a thin veneer of natural rights snake oil as if that somehow makes everything "right".  It doesn't.  Natural rights arguments let you assert moral superiority *but only if the party they are being asserted for came to the table with clean hands*.  If they didn't then it's just sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.


I hope you two realize you are arguing over man-made concepts.  "Natural rights" aren't an absolute moral obligation on everyone to support society.  Anyone could disagree with them and you wouldn't have any objective basis to tell them they're wrong and force them to cooperate, even if only "for the good of society" (We know where that gets us).  I believe my rights come from my Creator, and that is the only objective basis for law in any country.  That's what Ron Paul believes, that's what the founders believed, and any reference to "natural rights" is just choosing these arbitrary standards for justice and applying them on everyone else.  In essence, you are imposing your standards on other people by forcing them to cooperate with the concept of "natural law." 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I believe in natural law, but not in the way that a lot of people here believe in it.  I believe God is part of our nature, and that is where we derive our natural rights from and the only true basis for any obligatory law.

----------


## Guitarzan

> I hope you two realize you are arguing over man-made concepts.  "Natural rights" aren't an absolute moral obligation on everyone to support society.  Anyone could disagree with them and you wouldn't have any objective basis to tell them they're wrong and force them to cooperate, even if only "for the good of society" (We know where that gets us).  I believe my rights come from my Creator, and that is the only objective basis for law in any country.  That's what Ron Paul believes, that's what the founders believed, and any reference to "natural rights" is just choosing these arbitrary standards for justice and applying them on everyone else.  *In essence, you are imposing your standards on other people by forcing them to cooperate with the concept of "natural law."* 
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong.  I believe in natural law, but not in the way that a lot of people here believe in it.  I believe God is part of our nature, and that is where we derive our natural rights from and the only true basis for any obligatory law.


No...that's the beauty of Natural Law...no one imposes anything on anyone else. Natural law basically says that all I ask of you is that you ask nothing of me. That is why natural law is the only objective basis for any law.

----------


## erowe1

> I believe my rights come from my Creator, and that is the only objective basis for law in any country.  That's what Ron Paul believes, that's what the founders believed, and any reference to "natural rights" is just choosing these arbitrary standards for justice and applying them on everyone else.


If they come from the creator, they're not arbitrary. What you're espousing here looks like basically what I've been saying. "Natural law" and "rights that come from the Creator" are the same thing. Where I differ from you is in your opening sentence. The Creator's laws (i.e. natural law) are absolute moral obligations on everyone.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No...that's the beauty of Natural Law...no one imposes anything on anyone else. Natural law basically says that all I ask of you is that you ask nothing of me. That is why natural law is the only objective basis for any law.


But what if some people don't embrace the concept you just described?  Natural law is a standard in itself, and if you build a society based on natural law, then yes, you are imposing your belief in natural law on others who may not want to cooperate.  If you truly didn't impose anything on anyone else, then you would have no basis for putting criminals in jail because that would be imposing your belief that they should cooperate with society.  Furthermore, asking someone that they ask nothing of you is a standard in and of itself and you are asking something of someone, therefore violating their right not to be asked anything of.  Natural law has no objective basis.  It's just an idea with no objective rooting.  If people want to disagree, then who are you to tell them they are wrong?  The government?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If they come from the creator, they're not arbitrary.


That is exactly what I'm saying.  If they come from an absolute moral authority, such as the Creator, then there is a basis for obligatory law that allows the smooth function of society and the basis for forcing people to recognize other peoples' rights.  




> What you're espousing here looks like basically what I've been saying. "Natural law" and "rights that come from the Creator" are the same thing.


Natural law can only be an absolute law that applies to everyone if it comes from an absolute moral authority.  In the absence of the Creator, there is no basis for it applying to everyone.  If someone disagrees and thinks everyone's rights revolve around their discretion, then you have no objective basis to tell them they can't live like that.  




> Where I differ from you is in your opening sentence. The Creator's laws (i.e. natural law) are absolute moral obligations on everyone.


The Creator is the only basis for the obligation.  Without the Creator, the only thing that gives you rights is the fact the government says so.  Natural law without the Creator is simply a concept that is meaningless in terms of an all-encompassing law that others must obey.

----------


## Guitarzan

> But what if some people don't embrace the concept you just described?  Natural law is a standard in itself, and if you build a society based on natural law, then yes, you are imposing your belief in natural law on others who may not want to cooperate.  If you truly didn't impose anything on anyone else, then you would have no basis for putting criminals in jail because that would be imposing your belief that they should cooperate with society.  Furthermore, asking someone that they ask nothing of you is a standard in and of itself and you are asking something of someone, therefore violating their right not to be asked anything of.  Natural law has no objective basis.  It's just an idea with no objective rooting.  If people want to disagree, then who are you to tell them they are wrong?  The government?


Who am I to tell them they are wrong? I'm just a person who would try to convince them that they are wrong. Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong? They would have to convince me that I'm wrong, and that natural law somehow isn't the most objective basis for forming laws. 

I think you and I both know, assuming that we both believe in natural law, that applying it's concepts is the only way a society can truely have laws that put individuals as equals in the eyes of the law. It's that simple, and I feel that if given the opportunity to be convinced, most people who are intellectually honest, would agree.

----------


## erowe1

> But what if some people don't embrace the concept you just described?  Natural law is a standard in itself, and if you build a society based on natural law, then yes, you are imposing your belief in natural law on others who may not want to cooperate.  If you truly didn't impose anything on anyone else, then you would have no basis for putting criminals in jail because that would be imposing your belief that they should cooperate with society.  Furthermore, asking someone that they ask nothing of you is a standard in and of itself and you are asking something of someone, therefore violating their right not to be asked anything of.  Natural law has no objective basis.  It's just an idea with no objective rooting.  If people want to disagree, then who are you to tell them they are wrong?  The government?


What do you mean by "build society"?

The description of natural law that guitarzan gave is one that would preclude any kind of building of society that involves imposing anything on anyone who doesn't want to cooperate. The only cooperation someone following that law could have would be cooperation with other willing participants.

Also, I can't follow the position you're advocating. Earlier you said you believe in rights from a creator. If you believe that, then how can you say that natural law has no objective basis? If there exists a creator, and if that creator has legislated a law for us, then that law must exist as an objective fact, not something someone could get out of just by choosing to disbelieve in it.

----------


## erowe1

> Natural law can only be an absolute law that applies to everyone if it comes from an absolute moral authority.  In the absence of the Creator, there is no basis for it applying to everyone.


Well yes, of course. Without a creator there's no such thing as natural law. Every time I referred to natural law in this thread I just took that as a given.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Who am I to tell them they are wrong? I'm just a person who would try to convince them that they are wrong. Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong? They would have to convince me that I'm wrong, and that natural law somehow isn't the most objective basis for forming laws. 
> 
> I think you and I both know, assuming that we both believe in natural law, that applying it's concepts is the only way a society can truely have laws that put individuals as equals in the eyes of the law. It's that simple, and I feel that if given the opportunity to be convinced, most people who are intellectually honest, would agree.


For the most part, I agree.  All I'm saying is that, without an objective moral authority, there is no way to argue that someone is wrong.  Beside, society doesn't "convince" people they are wrong.  They either cooperate or are put away from society (jail).  If you don't get the authority to do that from an objective law from an absolute moral authority, then it is simply imposing your belief that they should be put away from society because they won't cooperate.  

I agree with you that natural law is the only way a society can cooperate.  However, arguing about what should be included in this "natural law" is completely arbitrary unless you derive your law from an absolute authority, such as the Creator.  The problem is that some people, although they may agree that it is the only way society can have laws, may not want to be a part of society, although they still believe it is their right to exist within a society and do whatever they want, despite that society's standards.  This is why all of a nation's laws must be based on the rights given to us by our Creator.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What do you mean by "build society"?
> 
> The description of natural law that guitarzan gave is one that would preclude any kind of building of society that involves imposing anything on anyone who doesn't want to cooperate. The only cooperation someone following that law could have would be cooperation with other willing participants.
> 
> Also, I can't follow the position you're advocating. Earlier you said you believe in rights from a creator. If you believe that, then how can you say that natural law has no objective basis? *If there exists a creator*, and if that creator has legislated a law for us, then that law must exist as an objective fact, not something someone could get out of just by choosing to disbelieve in it.


That is exactly what I mean.  I think you may be misunderstanding my position.  I'm not saying there's no basis for natural law.  I'm saying that the ONLY basis for natural law is from God.  Otherwise, it's people telling other people how they should live.  What I'm getting at is that it's meaningless to argue what "natural law" is without reference to an absolute moral authority, the Creator.

----------


## KingRobbStark

No one has the right to anything. End of argument. The only "rights" that exist are only those that are mutually benificial.

----------


## AFPVet

The Constitution only recognizes our rights—it does not give them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No one has the right to anything. End of argument. The only "rights" that exist are only those that are mutually benificial.


If you believe this, then you must believe your rights come from the state, and therefore, the state can change them at any time.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> If you believe this, then you must believe your rights come from the state, and therefore, the state can change them at any time.


That's a twisted interpretation. I believe that rights are those that all people can agree on.

----------


## Theocrat

> No...that's the beauty of Natural Law...no one imposes anything on anyone else. Natural law basically says that all I ask of you is that you ask nothing of me. That is why natural law is the only objective basis for any law.


Can you define what you mean exactly by "natural law"?

----------


## ClayTrainor

*Time Magazine cover asks:* if the Constitution Still Matters

*ClayTrainor responds:* No, and it never really did outside of planting the initial seed for big government To grow.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> *Time Magazine cover asks:* if the Constitution Still Matters
> 
> *ClayTrainor responds:* No, and it never really did outside of planting the initial seed for big government To grow.


That's objective, and it can be applied to every constitution. I believe the seed of big government started with the Articles of Confederation or better yet the state constitutions.

----------


## erowe1

> That's a twisted interpretation. I believe that rights are those that all people can agree on.


So if a single person believes that you don't have some right, then you automatically don't because of that?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> So if a single person believes that you don't have some right, then you automatically don't because of that?


I believe that rights are a selfish creation in order to sustain our safty. Some rights exist because its mutually beneficial for everyone to believe.

----------


## erowe1

> Some rights exist because its mutually beneficial for everyone to believe.


Like what?

----------


## YumYum

> No one has the right to anything. End of argument. The only "rights" that exist are only those that are mutually benificial.


True. People have fought and died for thousands of years to have "rights". Where was "natural law" then? 

The Puritans came to this country and set up a theocracy. It was tyrannical in nature, but the majority must have wanted it and thought it would be mutually beneficial. Did the Puritans believe in "natural law"?

----------


## Theocrat

> I believe that rights are a selfish creation in order to sustain our safty. Some rights exist because its mutually beneficial for everyone to believe.


Philosophically speaking:

Who gets to decide what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Why should people who don't believe in living for mutual benefit adhere to what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Would imposing what a person or group thinks is "mutually beneficial" upon them actually be an act of mutual benefit?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Like what?


Property rights is a great example. One man owning 500 acres of land is a strong proponent of property rights, and does not intend to loose it (by force or other means) to those strong enough to seize it from him. Those who who have no land believe in property rights in hopes of acquiring their own land in the future.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Philosophically speaking:
> 
> Who gets to decide what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Why should people who don't believe in living for mutual benefit adhere to what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Would imposing what a person or group thinks is "mutually beneficial" upon them actually be an act of mutual benefit?


When people think of rights they tend to think long term. The property rights example may satisfy your points. That example may not satisfy some people with theological beliefs.

----------


## YumYum

> Philosophically speaking:
> 
> Who gets to decide what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Why should people who don't believe in living for mutual benefit adhere to what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Would imposing what a person or group thinks is "mutually beneficial" upon them actually be an act of mutual benefit?


Who gets to decide what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone? 

-- The majority

Why should people who don't believe in living for mutual benefit adhere to what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone? 

-- They don't have to. They can leave and go live in the woods by themselves and run the risk of not surviving. 

Would imposing what a person or group thinks is "mutually beneficial" upon them actually be an act of mutual benefit? 

--Only if the person who is imposed upon accepts what the group thinks is mutually beneficial. Look at the Emperor Penguin. They work together and do what is mutually beneficial; thus improving their chances of survival.

----------


## erowe1

> True. People have fought and died for thousands of years to have "rights". Where was "natural law" then? 
> 
> The Puritans came to this country and set up a theocracy. It was tyrannical in nature, but the majority must have wanted it and thought it would be mutually beneficial. Did the Puritans believe in "natural law"?


If natural law exists, then it is by definition prescriptive, not descriptive. It says what people ought to do, not what they do do. So it's not something that one could claim to deduce from human behavior throughout history.

But it's also something that we all know is there. Where was it when people fought and died for thousands of years? It was in their hearts; they recognized it, and they knew that the tyranny they endured wasn't merely displeasurable, but wrong. And they gave their lives not because they saw a benefit to themselves in that (quite the opposite), but because they were innately convinced that there exists such a thing in the world as a just cause, and that they had found one.

You recognize this too. Behind your question about the puritans is a belief that there's something wrong with tyranny, not just that you wouldn't have liked to live under their rule, but that they would have been wrong to impose it on you.

On a superficial level you can try to deny that absolute right and wrong exists, and think your way out of it. But the certainty that it does exist will always be inside you, and you won't ever succeed in arguing yourself out of it because you're made in the image of God.

----------


## erowe1

> Property rights is a great example. One man owning 500 acres of land is a strong proponent of property rights, and does not intend to loose it (by force or other means) to those strong enough to seize it from him. Those who who have no land believe in property rights in hopes of acquiring their own land in the future.


So everybody agrees on this? There aren't any sociopaths who think that there's nothing wrong with them stealing others' property?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

//

unnecessary hair splitting

----------


## KingRobbStark

> So everybody agrees on this? There aren't any sociopaths who think that there's nothing wrong with them stealing others' property?


There is. Those who choose to break the rules are kicked out.

----------


## osan

> Philosophically speaking:
> 
> Who gets to decide what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Why should people who don't believe in living for mutual benefit adhere to what is "mutually beneficial" for everyone?Would imposing what a person or group thinks is "mutually beneficial" upon them actually be an act of mutual benefit?


Three of the $64 questions the collectivists do not want asked, and when put to them never answer in event the most minimally sensible fashion.

----------


## erowe1

> There is. Those who choose to break the rules are kicked out.


Then we're back to my earlier question. If some rights exist because everyone believes in them, and if property rights are not an example of such rights after all, since not everybody believes in them, then what's an example of a right that exists because everybody agrees on it?

Also, if the condition of everybody believing in it is essential for something to be a right, then doesn't that mean that property rights aren't rights, since not everybody believes in them?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> That's objective, and it can be applied to every constitution. I believe the seed of big government started with the Articles of Confederation or better yet the state constitutions.


Very true.  but shhhh... I just got neg repped by one of the Admins of this forum telling me I'm making* "us"* look bad. lol

----------


## KingRobbStark

> So everybody agrees on this? There aren't any sociopaths who think that there's nothing wrong with them stealing others' property?


It would seem that I wasn't thinking when I said everybody. The majority and force is all it takes.

----------


## erowe1

> It would seem that I wasn't thinking when I said everybody. The majority and force is all it takes.


Why is a majority necessary? Is there something about counting up the number of people who believe something is a right and figuring out that that number is a majority (majority of what? I wonder) that makes that belief become a "right" in a way that it wouldn't have been prior to confirming through counting people that it was a majority opinion?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Then we're back to my earlier question. If some rights exist because everyone believes in them, and if property rights are not an example of such rights after all, since not everybody believes in them, then what's an example of a right that exists because everybody agrees on it?
> 
> Also, if the condition of everybody believing in it is essential for something to be a right, then doesn't that mean that property rights aren't rights, since not everybody believes in them?


A right is not right unless it is enforced. The evolution of the definition of rights can be viewed through out history. It started out with kings dictating rights, and as that power is decenterlized more people are able to dictate rights. As more people had the power to dictate then it became a mutual purgative to dictate rights that benefited everyone.

----------


## YumYum

> If natural law exists, then it is by definition prescriptive, not descriptive. It says what people ought to do, not what they do do. So it's not something that one could claim to deduce from human behavior throughout history.


You are assuming that everybody who has ever lived were in total agreement as to what people "ought to do". I don't think this is the case. This is evident by how people fight with each other today over what is "right" and what people "ought to do". The winner in such battles determine the agenda for the majority.




> But it's also something that we all know is there. Where was it when people fought and died for thousands of years? It was in their hearts; they recognized it, and they knew that the tyranny they endured wasn't merely displeasurable, but wrong. And they gave their lives not because they saw a benefit to themselves in that (quite the opposite), but because they were innately convinced that there exists such a thing in the world as a just cause, and that they had found one.


What was "in their hearts"? Most people were/are superstitious and they fought for either tribal/religious reasons or for survival. What might be one person's "just cause" can be another person's tyranny.




> You recognize this too. Behind your question about the puritans is a belief that there's something wrong with tyranny, not just that you wouldn't have liked to live under their rule, but that they would have been wrong to impose it on you.


True. I wouldn't have wanted to live under Puritan tyranny, but I would have had to make a choice: put up with their nonsense and obey their stupid laws, or leave the group and face sure extermination, trying to survive on my own.




> On a superficial level you can try to deny that absolute right and wrong exists, and think your way out of it. But the certainty that it does exist will always be inside you, and you won't ever succeed in arguing yourself out of it because you're made in the image of God.


Okay, but this begs the question: what is "right" and "wrong"? Everybody has different definitions.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Why is a majority necessary? Is there something about counting up the number of people who believe something is a right and figuring out that that number is a majority (majority of what? I wonder) that makes that belief become a "right" in a way that it wouldn't have been prior to confirming through counting people that it was a majority opinion?


The definition of rights is ever changing. Though when it comes to rights it is not merely dictated by the majority, but the absalute majority (few percentages away from 100%), or from those with enough force (but that would be the difinition of tyranny). 

I'm not able to explain my positions clearly at the moment. I'm typing with my phone while trying to irrigate.

----------


## Travlyr

> A right is not right unless it is enforced.


That's the way I see it too. I have the right to defend myself because I claim that right. I enforce it whenever I want, but I'm not stupid about it. I don't carry a side arm in public because somebody else (like the police) may not understand my rights and I don't care to prove my point at this time in life.  Nonetheless, I enforce my right to free speech, my right to eat animals, my right to travel, all my rights, to which I lay claim, are enforced by me. If I don't enforce my rights, then who will? Obama? I don't think so. It is up to me to enforce my rights.

----------


## erowe1

> You are assuming that everybody who has ever lived were in total agreement as to what people "ought to do".


No I'm not. And that's my point. If there is such a thing as natural law, then it doesn't matter if everybody agrees about it. It doesn't even matter if one single person believes in it. It could be universally rejected by all humanity. But it would still define what they ought to do, and it would still be the case that their violations of it would be wrong.




> Okay, but this begs the question: what is "right" and "wrong"? Everybody has different definitions.


This always comes up, and I guess I just look at it differently than most. I don't think everybody does disagree. I think that, even though there's no single more that has commanded the respect of all people throughout history, if you compare the ethical believes of any two people from anywhere in the world and any point in history, you'll probably find more in common between their ideas of right and wrong than you'd expect. You can compare law codes from anywhere, ancient or modern, and find occasional important differences, but also find a lot of patterns showing up over and over again.

And where there are disagreements, I don't think we need to conclude hastily that these disagreements can never be resolved. If there does exist a natural law, then it must be the case that when any two people disagree about it, at least one of them must be wrong. And when two societies have different mores, at least one of them must be wrong. And again, I think we all innately know this to be the case. Try though we might, we really know that societies that don't practice female circumcision, foot binding, child sacrifice, or kidnapping and enslaving innocent people, are in those respects, not just different from, but positively superior to societies that do those things.

I don't claim that we'll all be able to agree about God's law in this life. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And if there's one thing we all do agree on, including those who insist they don't believe this, it's that there does exist an absolute universal moral law, and that we're wrong when we violate it.

The practical matter of trying to get people to agree on morality is a different matter. I would say that it must involve a process of education that might need to begin at different places for different people, but that will always need to be centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

----------


## erowe1

> A right is not right unless it is enforced. The evolution of the definition of rights can be viewed through out history. It started out with kings dictating rights, and as that power is decenterlized more people are able to dictate rights. As more people had the power to dictate then it became a mutual purgative to dictate rights that benefited everyone.


Really? Can you direct me to any good sources that demonstrate this evolution?

----------


## erowe1

> The definition of rights is ever changing. Though when it comes to rights it is not merely dictated by the majority, but the absalute majority (few percentages away from 100%), or from those with enough force (but that would be the difinition of tyranny). 
> 
> I'm not able to explain my positions clearly at the moment. I'm typing with my phone while trying to irrigate.


I think I'm following you.

But even now, when you give these two alternatives, one that determines rights by a huge majority of almost 100% of the people (again, a percent of what people I wonder), and the other that determines them by force without the approval of that many people, what's the point of dividing up those two categories and only calling the second kind "tyranny"? If something is tyranny when a small number of people do it to the majority, then isn't it still tyranny if 90% of the people do it to the other 10%?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Really? Can you direct me to any good sources that demonstrate this evolution?


The notion of rights is a concept. A human idea. Ideas evolve over time. So why should this be any different?

----------


## erowe1

> The notion of rights is a concept. A human idea. Ideas evolve over time. So why should this be any different?


So did you just deduce your claim from the fact that ideas evolve over time? Or have you actually seen evidence that the concept of rights evolved through the phases that you described?

I haven't studied that particular question. But I'm skeptical. My initial guess would be that the concept of rights has been around longer than the concept of kings has.

----------


## Todd

Neal Postman could answer Times question if he were alive.  He would find it ironic that Time, would ask such a question knowing that the majority of the United States is illiterate and few read them anymore.   Everyone's watching Fox, CNN and Dancing with the starz.

 When people stop reading, then the main premise behind our system of an informed and educated society is lost.

"whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" -  Thomas Jefferson

----------


## osan

> If natural law exists, then it is by definition prescriptive, not descriptive.


How do you figure?  It would appear to readily be both.

I


> t says what people ought to do, not what they do do.


Such normative discourse implies at the very least that which people might do that is not in accord with principle.  Were it not the case, there would be no reason to have "the law" in the first place.




> So it's not something that one could claim to deduce from human behavior throughout history.


From observed behavior?  Certainly not.  Such behavior, were it to be mistakenly taken as reflective of compliance with an objective normative standard, one could only deem the standard more nihilistic than anything else.




> But it's also something that we all know is there. Where was it when people fought and died for thousands of years? It was in their hearts; they recognized it, and they knew that the tyranny they endured wasn't merely displeasurable, but wrong. And they gave their lives not because they saw a benefit to themselves in that (quite the opposite), but because they were innately convinced that there exists such a thing in the world as a just cause, and that they had found one.


The question of whether natural "law" exists independent of human existence is eminently arguable.  "Rights", just like "government", "the state", and "society" exist in one place only: within the confines of each of us.  Rights are defined by what is common to all of us; They are our common just claims; our common desires and aversions within some presumably broad context.  I assert that the context in question is nothing less than life itself.  

Barring the presence of some profoundly aberrant condition in a given individual, it is a safe bet to assume that all people wish to live by the dictates of their consciences.  Those dictates may appear wildly varying between individuals, even grossly conflicting in many cases; but if you dig deeper one inevitably finds commonalities even there.  It is _that_ set of commonalities which, IMO, constitutes the true basis upon which "natural law" derives.  In other words, if you find conflict, you have not looked deeply enough.  When one has reached the right level of consideration, all conflict recedes leaving a small but very bright spot.  That is what we call "truth".

----------


## KingRobbStark

> So did you just deduce your claim from the fact that ideas evolve over time? Or have you actually seen evidence that the concept of rights evolved through the phases that you described?
> 
> I haven't studied that particular question. But I'm skeptical. My initial guess would be that the concept of rights has been around longer than the concept of kings has.


Both. Here's list.

Tribal: rights based on tribe/power

Ancient Egypt: rights based on divinity/heredity/power

Islamic Empire: rights based on divinity/heredity/power

European monarchs: rights based divinity/heredity/power

17th-21st century: rights based on equality/power

Yes I do agree that the concept of rights has existed before the concept of kings, but the concept of power has always existed.

----------


## VerlieJoy

> Provocative? Perhaps, but that’s nothing new for Time magazine with a history of taking iconic American symbols and using them to make political statements.
> 
> On Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks does the document still matter. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> “Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think,” Stengel said on “Morning Joe.” “People all the time are debating what’s constitutional and what’s unconstitutional. To me the Constitution is a guardrail. It’s for when we are going off the road and it gets us back on. It’s not a traffic cop that keeps us going down the center. And what our politics are about – politics are about conflict. There was no people who argued more about defining principles of America than the framers of the Constitution. They argued both sides of the most powerful issues in American history – slavery, states’ rights, central government. So to say that what did the framers want is kind of a crazy question, I have to say. I write about that in the piece.”
> 
> Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/ti...#ixzz1Q8JHVAVA


Of course it still matters. America's current problems stem from people like this who are trying to pull further and further away from the constitution. It was designed to prevent the fed from violating rights, which later appeared in the Bill of Rights and to limit the federal government's scope, which is exactly why the fed is pulling further and further away from it. The drafters of the constitution argued about what to include in the constitution so that later generations would be protected, not to justify the "tossing aside" behavior of modern political heads. 
"When we get into the habit of disregarding it or interpreting certain key phrases so broadly as to allow the federal government to do whatever it wants, we do so at our own peril." -Ron Paul
The constitution is not a elephant in the corner as congress often treats it. It should be in the forefront of their minds.

----------


## osan

> The definition of rights is ever changing.


Says who?  What is your definition of "right"?




> Though when it comes to rights it is not merely dictated by the majority, but the absalute majority (few percentages away from 100%), or from those with enough force (but that would be the difinition of tyranny).


Rights are not dictated by anyone.  They derive through reason.  What  you describe are not rights - it is mere brute force.




> I'm not able to explain my positions clearly at the moment. I'm typing with my phone while trying to irrigate.


Perhaps you do not understand them clearly.

----------


## lester1/2jr

the article appears to be not what people are making it out to be.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Says who? What is your definition of "right"?What ever benefits is my definition.


What ever benefits me is my definition. 





> Rights are not dictated by anyone.  They derive through reason.  What  you describe are not rights - it is mere brute force.


What you just wrote is unreasonable. Would it be reasonable to go against your own self interest?





> Perhaps you do not understand them clearly.


Perhaps

----------


## osan

> If there is such a thing as natural law...


The question is not so much whether it exists, but rather what is the most sensible definition of the term.  "Natural" can be a very loaded term that is used in a very fast and loose fashion, void of rigorous meaning.  Given that to which "natural law" is routinely applied, this absence of precision is most alarming.

Arguing the existence of natural law is, IMO, a nonsensically fruitless pursuit.  The definition of the term is where pay dirt rests.  The principles that underpin what I consider to be proper natural law.

It also behooves one to bear in mind that there is a long standing psychological schism between that which is natural and that which is "man made", the usual tacit assumption being that the two are mutually exclusive conditions.    This is a very "western" view - very judeo-christian-muslim and IMO ridiculous.  When one dispenses with this silly and irrational belief, "natural law" takes on a far more intuitively obvious character.  It becomes, in fact, quite axiomatic in its flavor.

To assert that this brand of natural law preexisted humanity is going to be a tough sell to anyone with brains on the ball, even in the best cases.  I believe that not only is such an argument readily defeated, it is wholly unnecessary to make.  The truer argument is far more solid.  Funny how that works.  In my view, the law that derives from the single postulation of our equal claims to life is most inherently human.  It is part of what we are, which is why it arises so, erm.... naturally.

----------


## osan

> What ever benefits me is my definition.


That may not be entirely agreeable to others.





> What you just wrote is unreasonable. Would it be reasonable to go against your own self interest?


I wrote:




> Rights are not dictated by anyone. They derive through reason. What you describe are not rights - it is mere brute force.


You will need to be more specific.  What was unreasonable and how was it so?

Your question about going against your own interests is related to the issue at hand... how?  I cannot quite find the linkage.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> What ever benefits me is my definition.


wow.  according to that definition you have the 'right' to break down Bill Gates door and claim his mansion as your own.





> What you just wrote is unreasonable. Would it be reasonable to go against your own self interest?


Certainly, I would dive into a raging river to save a child's life, with zero expectation or reward or notoriety.  It seems perfectly reasonable to me.





> Perhaps


Yes, your definition of rights are dramatically different than mine.  A right is an inherent liberty that exists as an ontological condition of being human and alive.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Of course it still matters. America's current problems stem from people like this who are trying to pull further and further away from the constitution. It was designed to prevent the fed from violating rights, which later appeared in the Bill of Rights and to limit the federal government's scope, which is exactly why the fed is pulling further and further away from it. The drafters of the constitution argued about what to include in the constitution so that later generations would be protected, not to justify the "tossing aside" behavior of modern political heads. 
> "When we get into the habit of disregarding it or interpreting certain key phrases so broadly as to allow the federal government to do whatever it wants, we do so at our own peril." -Ron Paul
> The constitution is not a elephant in the corner as congress often treats it. It should be in the forefront of their minds.


+1

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That's a twisted interpretation. I believe that rights are those that all people can agree on.


But not everyone ever agrees.  Just because you happen to have the majority opinion, doesn't mean it's right.  Those who don't agree we call criminals and take away their rights.  There is a basis for this in the Bible, but there is no reason why this would be true without God.

----------


## osan

> A right is not right unless it is enforced.


I will disagree.  A right is a right.  An unenforced right is still a right.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> //
> 
> unnecessary hair splitting


But is it?  Many people's actions are directly affected by their beliefs.  If you were brought up in an environment where you don't think about it, you take it for granted.  However, there are always those people who act according to the consequences of their philosophical or theological beliefs.  Here's a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer:

If a person doesnt think there is a God to be accountable to, thenthen whats the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? Thats how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing

So, obviously, there are consequences to teaching people one thing versus another.  If you teach people their rights come from what people think is mutually beneficial, they may see no reason to abide by those standards, such as Jeffrey Dahmer here.  Hitler is another example.  He was trying to protect and extend the Aryan race as a part of some evolution-based belief.  Here's a quote from a textbook that was relevant to the Scopes trial in the 1930s:

"five races or varieties of manthe 
Ethiopian or Negro typethe Malay or brown racethe American Indianthe 
Mongolian or yellow raceand finally, the highest type of all, 
the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe 
and America." [emphasis added] By implication, we can surmise who, for 
Hunter, was on the bottom. 

Do you think that could have an impact on how people behaved toward one another, how they viewed someone who looked differently than they did?  It might have even had something to do with the prevalence of racist thought in that time period.  Who knows, but I think it's clear that the philosophical roots of a belief in government are very relevant because it clearly affects people's behavior.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The definition of rights is ever changing. Though when it comes to rights it is not merely dictated by the majority, but the absalute majority (few percentages away from 100%), or from those with enough force (but that would be the difinition of tyranny). 
> 
> I'm not able to explain my positions clearly at the moment. I'm typing with my phone while trying to irrigate.


I don't think you're able to explain your positions EVER.  Because they don't make sense.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

I think this whole thread is demonstrating my point rather well.  Beliefs about righst are arbitrary without reference to an absolute authority.  If your rights do not come from God, then they must come from power or from government.  This belief has a profound impact on how people behave toward one another.  If they believe their rights come from authority or power, then they may try to exercise that power on someone against their will, causing an increase in criminal behavior.  They can't help it that they were born into society.  If their beliefs tell them they can do whatever they want without consequence, then they will tend to go against society or any idea of rights that "society" may have.  Society must then respond by suppressing them and imposing their arbitrary beliefs about what they can and cannot do on that person.  I believe, if people understood where rights came from, their Creator, then this wouldn't be as much of a problem.  Of course people will always get jealous and evil is in their nature, but at least society would be justified in taking appropriate action.  That appropriate action is now based heavily on the Bible, such as the ten commandments and even our court system.  

This is what Ron Paul believes, this is what the founders believed, and this is what I am striving to protect by supporting Ron Paul.  I'm trying to protect the idea of absolute rights and justice as given to us by our Creator.

----------


## AFPVet

The Founders were not a bunch of beer buddies from college. These were some of the most brilliant minds.... Rights are not something which can be decided on a case by case basis. Rights are something which we have as free beings. So long as my right does not interfere with another's, there is harmony. 

I highly encourage people to look into the history of our Constitution and look for common themes which exist today. If we forget our history, we will be doomed to repeat it. To say that the Constitution no longer matters is akin to saying that history does not matter and is no longer needed.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> That may not be entirely agreeable to others.


That's right





> I wrote
> 
> You will need to be more specific.  What was unreasonable and how was it so?
> 
> Your question about going against your own interests is related to the issue at hand... how?  I cannot quite find the linkage.


I know what you wrote. My contention is what is so reasonable about about claiming a peace of land? (Excluding selfish reasons).

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I will disagree.  A right is a right.  An unenforced right is still a right.


It would seem that we don't need to enforce the constitution after all.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> I don't think you're able to explain your positions EVER.  Because they don't make sense.


That's your opinion. No need to be aggressive.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Keep in mind that one of the things that distinguishes our Constitution from the UN Charter is that our rights were given to us by our Creator, while the UN Charter claims that they are the giver of rights.

What God gives to us, only he can take away.  The same way that what the UN gives, they can also revoke.

I choose the Constitution.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> But not everyone ever agrees.  Just because you happen to have the majority opinion, doesn't mean it's right.  Those who don't agree we call criminals and take away their rights.  There is a basis for this in the Bible, but there is no reason why this would be true without God.


I never claimed that everyone will agree. Though it would seem that my idea concerning rights will never coincide with those who believe in god.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> My contention is what is so reasonable about about claiming a peace of land? (Excluding selfish reasons).


Huh?  You don't agree with private property rights?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Huh?  You don't agree with private property rights?


I do, and if you read my previous posts you would know why.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Huh?  You don't agree with private property rights?


I do, and if you read my previous posts you would know why.

----------


## affa

> My, you're quick.  I changed it right after I posted it.    No, I understand your argument.  I guess I've seen so much of the guilt-tripping over the Indians that I overreacted to it.


Personally?  I think it's right that we feel a tinge of guilt about how our forefathers behaved.  That is, in part, how a culture learns.  So many lessons... the lessons of manifest destiny, the lessons of Vietnam, the lessons of Hiroshima.  And on and on, up and including the present day.

Now, I understand why, after awhile, we don't want to be guilt tripped.  We don't want to hear about it anymore... because it can be gruesome.  It's disheartening.  It's overused, and often misused.  But it still happened, it's still wrong, and it's still something to learn from... and dismissing it as simple 'guilt-tripping' is... well, forgetting the lessons of the past, in a way.

Now, were we at a point in time where invasion, conquest, domination, war, and empire a thing of the past... then, yes, I would side with you and say let bygones be bygones.  That was the past.  We learned.  But unfortunately, as we look out the window and realize the United States is currently involved in bombings in Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen (and it's telling that I feel like I'm forgetting places)... that we have significant troops on the ground... yea.  I'm just not seeing it.   I feel guilty for paying taxes.  Every damn day.   I feel guilty for playing the part of a peon in it all.  At some point we need to ask ourselves -- what did we do?  Guilt is a powerful motivator.

----------


## affa

> But is it?  Many people's actions are directly affected by their beliefs.  If you were brought up in an environment where you don't think about it, you take it for granted.  However, there are always those people who act according to the consequences of their philosophical or theological beliefs.  Here's a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer:
> 
> If a person doesnt think there is a God to be accountable to, thenthen whats the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? Thats how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing
> 
> So, obviously, there are consequences to teaching people one thing versus another.



Wait. What?  Are you seriously trying to use the words of a serial killer to indicate the potential moral hazards of atheism and/or darwinism?

I'm just going to pretend I didn't read your post and turn the other cheek, like a good atheistic-agnostic.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I never claimed that everyone will agree. Though it would seem that my idea concerning rights will never coincide with those who believe in god.


That's true because God is the only true source of rights.  If not from God, then from the state.  Like it or not, that's what you believe, so you must also believe that those rights can be taken away by the state.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wait. What?  Are you seriously trying to use the words of a serial killer to indicate the potential moral hazards of atheism and/or darwinism?


It's very valid.  It's a serial killer talking about why he was a serial killer.  I think we can learn something from that.  The scary thing is that his reasoning is sound.




> I'm just going to pretend I didn't read your post and turn the other cheek, like a good atheistic-agnostic.


Uh, what?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But is it?  Many people's actions are directly affected by their beliefs.  If you were brought up in an environment where you don't think about it, you take it for granted.  However, there are always those people who act according to the consequences of their philosophical or theological beliefs.  Here's a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer:
> 
> ‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
> 
> So, obviously, there are consequences to teaching people one thing versus another.  If you teach people their rights come from what people think is mutually beneficial, they may see no reason to abide by those standards, such as Jeffrey Dahmer here.  Hitler is another example.  He was trying to protect and extend the Aryan race as a part of some evolution-based belief.  Here's a quote from a textbook that was relevant to the Scopes trial in the 1930s:
> 
> "five races or varieties of man…the 
> Ethiopian or Negro type…the Malay or brown race…the American Indian…the 
> Mongolian or yellow race…and finally, the highest type of all, 
> ...


I was splitting hairs on someone else's unrelated post.  it was unnecessary.  I was not splitting hairs on the article.

----------


## osan

> Wait. What?  Are you seriously trying to use the words of a serial killer to indicate the potential moral hazards of atheism and/or darwinism?


Dahmer's quote is not opinion.  It is fact.  That is what he says he believed and how he behaved pursuant to those beliefs.  Make of that what you will.




> I'm just going to pretend I didn't read your post and turn the other cheek, like a good atheistic-agnostic.


The smack of truth upon your cheek smarts too greatly?  Methinks you need to toughen up a wee bit.

----------


## osan

> That's true because God is the only true source of rights.


Which tells us nothing.  In order to make sense, "god" must be defined.  Can "god" be sufficiently defined universally?  I doubt it.




> If not from God, then from the state.


False dichotomy error, my pal.  There are other possibilities.  We have been given/acquired the power of reason.  That alone is enough to establish our rights as axiomatic consequences of our fundamental relationships to one another.  It amazes me how few people see this, even in this forum where liberty and reason are ostensibly held in high regard.  We do not have to drag "god" into it.  Either "god" is not a factor, or "god" rendered unto us this gift that we would be able to dope these questions out for ourselves without the requirement of blind faith.  A more fortunate circumstance I could not imagine, yet so many of us fritter this gift away because they refuse to use the brains with which they were so generously endowed.  Shame on them all.




> Like it or not, that's what you believe, so you must also believe that those rights can be taken away by the state.


Crash and burn logic, pal.  Faith in "god" is not necessary.  By the same token, faith in "god" probably does nothing to diminish the logically reasoned basis for rights, barring some truly aberrant attributions to the notion of a deity.

----------


## osan

> It would seem that we don't need to enforce the constitution after all.


You appear to be in sore need of some sharpening of your reasoning skills.  I did not write, nor did I imply through my words that rights did not need to be enforced.  My only statement was that an unenforced right is still a right.  Just because a right exists, it does not follow that it cannot be violated.

----------


## erowe1

> False dichotomy error, my pal.  There are other possibilities.  We have been given/acquired the power of reason.  That alone is enough to establish our rights as axiomatic consequences of our fundamental relationships to one another.


1) If reason is given, then even by this argument, we get back to the Creator as the ultimate source of rights.
2) If reason is not given, then why believe it exists at all? Without a trustworthy source for reason itself, trust in the reasonableness of our minds, our senses, and our uses of what we naively refer to as the laws of logic is folly.
3) If there really is a law dictating that reason alone is enough to establish our rights as axiomatic consequences of our fundamental relationships to one another, where does that law come from? Who is the law giver?

----------


## osan

> 1) If reason is given, then even by this argument, we get back to the Creator as the ultimate source of rights.


Not necessarily.  It may have been given by other living beings.  The possibility cannot be ruled out - not by a long shot.  Not saying it is the case, but that it is a possibility equal to that of "god".  Assuming this case, where did they come into reason?  I doubt the answer will be revealed any time soon. 




> 2) If reason is not given, then why believe it exists at all? Without a trustworthy source for reason itself, trust in the reasonableness of our minds, our senses, and our uses of what we naively refer to as the laws of logic is folly.


Why believe it exists?  Because its effects and products are eminently demonstrable.  Why believe in "cosmic rays"?  The evidence of their existence is the trail they leave.  

Folly?  How do you figure?  We as living entities have a choice to make: have faith in our senses or crawl into a corner and wait to die.  This old and played argument is just silly, unless you are a serious solipsist.   What in it is there to be taken seriously?





> 3) If there really is a law dictating that reason alone is enough to establish our rights as axiomatic consequences of our fundamental relationships to one another, where does that law come from? Who is the law giver?


Principle, not law.  Principle <> law.  The principles arise from the acceptance of one or more premises.  I maintain that but one premise need be accepted in order to derive the full body of correct governing principles.  If you accept that we each hold equal claims to life, the rest is a natural results of this.  No need for "god", though in most cases the addition harms nothing, AFAICS.

----------


## erowe1

> Why believe it exists?  Because its effects and products are eminently demonstrable.


How are they demonstrable? To demonstrate them, you would have to do so without using reason, lest you beg the question.

----------


## erowe1

> Principle, not law.  Principle <> law.  The principles arise from the acceptance of one or more premises.  I maintain that but one premise need be accepted in order to derive the full body of *correct* governing principles.  If you accept that we each hold equal claims to life, the rest is a natural results of this.  No need for "god", though in most cases the addition harms nothing, AFAICS.


What do you mean by "correct"? And if the principles are correct, then why does it matter if they be accepted or not? Isn't their correctness independent of their being accepted by people?

----------


## KingRobbStark

> Principle, not law.  Principle <> law.  The principles arise from the acceptance of one or more premises.  I maintain that but one premise need be accepted in order to derive the full body of correct governing principles.  If you accept that we each hold equal claims to life, the rest is a natural results of this.  No need for "god", though in most cases the addition harms nothing, AFAICS.


The principles arise from our selfishness. Our need to get the best possible outcome. In most cases the way to achieve that outcome is to allow others to share the same benefits. Like you said yourself if we accept that we each hold an equal claim our life, then that would be to the benefit of us all. That will remain true until a situation will force us to place a higher value on our life in comparison to another. You seem to insist that rights themselves are reasonable, but whats truly reasonable are the motives behind them.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Time for a Robert's bump. As relevant a question today as it was last year...

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> The Constitution matters if we make it matter.


How can we make the Constitution matter?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Our Constitution isn't even all that good and we couldn't stick to it....

----------


## Romulus

The is no law... only opinions from those in power.

----------


## nobody's_hero

"Though written constitutions may be violated *in moments of passion or delusion*, yet they furnish a text to which *those who are watchful* may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." — Thomas Jefferson

Emphasis mine.

1) This is undoubtedly a time of passion and delusion. 

2) *We* are the watchful ones.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Time for a Robert's bump. As relevant a question today as it was last year...


Here is another quote for you:  The greatest of benefits are derived from the most precious of alterations -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> "Though written constitutions may be violated *in moments of passion or delusion*, yet they furnish a text to which *those who are watchful* may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed." — Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> 1) This is undoubtedly a time of passion and delusion. 
> 
> 2) *We* are the watchful ones.


There is no such thing as commiting contempt against a law.  See, that is just a secular Christian belief.  Indeed, Jesus blessed the law.  But, He blessed the same laws that resulted in the persecution of His own mother with accusations of her behaving as an adulterer.  When He was finished fulfilling the prophecies though, He immediately forsook the law turning His back on the temple walking away.
So, one cannot commit contempt against a law; but, to the contrary, one can commit contempt against the people's Civil Purpose by legislating laws against their best interest.

----------


## stu2002

Apparently Not

----------


## Weston White

Oh now that is just rich!  So posed the publication that has posed nearly every tyrant of the last century on its cover and opined them as their _man of the year_.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Bump.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

> Lysander Spooner said "The Constitution either gives us the government we have, or is powerless to prevent it."


It is the people, not the document itself, that protect the country from tyranny.

Obviously, that hasn't worked out so well.

----------

