# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Worship of the Constitution

## Non-Libertarian

Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.

As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.

The founding fathers themselves didn't agree on everything and also, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:



> Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


However, I think Ron Paul is rather okay. I am a Socialist (which is the opposite of Ron Paul) but I love human rights and democracy and I hate torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq (in those areas, I agree with Ron Paul).

----------


## Kludge

Libertarians don't worship the Constitution.

You find any "pure" libertarian (anarchist) and they'll call the Constitution out as the Federalist piece of trash it is (in comparison to the Articles of Confederation).

This also isn't a libertarian board (nor is it a Libertarian board).

And while I'm writing, it should be noted that there is a difference between libertarians and Libertarians.

A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party. A libertarian is a person who believes in libertarian ideology (which is unrelated to the Constitution).

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Okay, you are correct in that. But then change "Libertarians" into "Ron Paul and his fans" in my text.

Edit: And I may also do it in the original one.

----------


## Objectivist

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.
> 
> The founding fathers themselves didn't agree on everything and also, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> 
> However, I think Ron Paul is rather okay. I am a Socialist (which is the opposite of Ron Paul) but I love human rights and democracy and I hate torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq (in those areas, I agree with Ron Paul).


OK, why do you think I shouldn't have the freedom to own and carry a firearm. I'll qualify myself as a law abiding American.
And there is no reason backing christians and muslims.

----------


## Kludge

Now, as for why conservatives demand a move back to the Constitution, it is because it prevents the government (both by outlining how the government is to function in the primary document, and setting boundaries the government cannot overstep in the Bill of Rights) from infringing on rights of US citizens. Ideally, there would be no need for a Constitution, because the government should respect the rights of people. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world (yet?). Personally, I think it's an authoritarian and arbitrary limitation on people to have government do as they please, but so long as it suits our cause, I will support it.

The Constitution certainly doesn't set the standard for morality or ethics. A law is no law if it is unjust and perhaps should be broken as a form of non-violent protest, and I think even the conservatives (and perhaps liberals?) on this board would agree with me. This applies to the Constitution as well. Were the Constitution to permit a postal service... Well, there has already been a lot of debate about the USPS (United States Postal Service), and I don't think anyone here believes that Lysander Spooner's private postal service should have been shut down by the government.

If you're interested in the ideology of Ron Paul and many of his "fans", there is a great flash video here which outlines what most of us (not me) believe at the core:

http://www.isil.org/resources/philos...ty-english.swf

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> OK, why do you think I shouldn't have the freedom to own and carry a firearm. I'll qualify myself as a law abiding American.
> And there is no reason backing christians and muslims.


Hehe, you Objectivists are all the same. Read my first post again and maybe you'll understand it better. I *never* said you shouldn't have the freedom to own and carry a firearm.
Objectivism = No logic

----------


## Objectivist

> Hehe, you Objectivists are all the same. Read my first post again and maybe you'll understand it better. I *never* said you shouldn't have the freedom to own and carry a firearm.
> Objectivism = No logic


That was easy, you don't want to answer my question.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> That was easy, you don't want to answer my question.


Why would I answer it? You base the question on a false conviction.

My point is that I never said that I didn't think you should have the right to own and carry fire arms. I just argued against one of the arguments that is often being used (the Constitution argument that is).

Don't you think it would be rather annoying now if I would ask you: "Why do you hate Ayn Rand?" You obviously do not hate Ayn Rand since you have her as your avatar so it's like answering "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

No Constitution is perfect but it is the supreme law of the land and honestly I think that while ours is flawed it is still pretty damn good. The focus we have on the Constitution is less our obsession with and more of our dislike for those who intentionally choose not to abide by the rules laid down in it.  If our Constitution had been followed than we would never have been caught up in this quagmire in Iraq or in most of the other debacles we have found ourselves in. I would even dare say that had we followed our Constitution that you would not be the socialist you proclaim yourself to be today because you would have looked upon America as the beacon of true liberty instead of the fascist state that we have slowly become.

----------


## Objectivist

> Why would I answer it? You base the question on a false conviction.
> 
> My point is that I never said that I didn't think you should have the right to own and carry fire arms. I just argued against one of the arguments that is often being used (the Constitution argument that is).
> 
> Don't you think it would be rather annoying now if I would ask you: "Why do you hate Ayn Rand?" You obviously do not hate Ayn Rand since you have her as your avatar so it's like answering "Have you stopped beating your wife?"


You don't know why I asked my question but it doesn't matter now.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> No Constitution is perfect but it is the supreme law of the land and honestly I think that while ours is flawed it is still pretty damn good. The focus we have on the Constitution is less our obsession with and more of our dislike for those who intentionally choose not to abide by the rules laid down in it.  If our Constitution had been followed than we would never have been caught up in this quagmire in Iraq or in most of the other debacles we have found ourselves in. I would even dare say that had we followed our Constitution that you would not be the socialist you proclaim yourself to be today because you would have looked upon America as the beacon of true liberty instead of the fascist state that we have slowly become.


All Constitutions are flawed. I also think that the US Constitution is very good. However, I still don't think that "Constitution arguments" as I call them now are any good at all.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> All Constitutions are flawed. I also think that the US Constitution is very good. However, I still don't think that "Constitution arguments" as I call them now are any good at all.


o.k. but why outside of your belief that it is pointless to base a philosophy off of the wishes of founding fathers?

----------


## Kludge

> o.k. but why outside of your belief that it is pointless to base a philosophy off of the wishes of founding fathers?


(@ N-L: use my argument -- use my argument -- it's post #5!)

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> o.k. but why outside of your belief that it is pointless to base a philosophy off of the wishes of founding fathers?


Are you asking me why I think it's pointless to base a philosophy on the wishes of the founding fathers? I don't want to be rude but I didn't really understand the question.

----------


## Kludge

> Are you asking me why I think it's pointless to base a philosophy on the wishes of the founding fathers? I don't want to be rude but I didn't really understand the question.


He wants to know why you appear to oppose the Constitution aside from the argument you gave (which itself is irrelevant... But you did say you like the Constitution, so you could say that you already said you thought the US constitution is good and rub it in his smug little face! Okay, I'll shut up now ).

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

That's o.k. I did not really understand the point of your original post either. Yes, I was asking you what you disagree with outside of relying on the founders to prove our point. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say but that is how I read it.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> That's o.k. I did not really understand the point of your original post either. Yes, I was asking you what you disagree with outside of relying on the founders to prove our point. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say but that is how I read it.


Well, I'm a Socialist and believe in the welfare state. Ron Paul clearly stands for the opposite. However, that's another debate.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

You said that you do not think "constitution arguments" are any good at all. Outside of the argument that it is what the founding fathers blieved in, what do you disagree on with regards to our constitution and/or the people the reasonings for adherence to that sacred document?

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> You said that you do not think "constitution arguments" are any good at all. Outside of the argument that it is what the founding fathers blieved in, what do you disagree on with regards to our constitution and/or the people the reasonings for adherence to that sacred document?


Well, first of all, I don't think it's a "sacred document" and I think it could be improved with lots of stuff. Should I really list things?

----------


## Kludge

> I think it could be improved with lots of stuff. Should I really list things?


Please do.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> Well, first of all, I don't think it's a "sacred document" and I think it could be improved with lots of stuff. Should I really list things?


Yes please do!

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Please do.


Okay, it doesn't belong to this debate really but sure, I can make a little list it if you really want it so much.

Better protection of privacy.Fix flaw that makes Guantanamo prison able to exist.Abolish the Senate (only house of representatives). Maybe you wont agree but whatever...Definition of cruel punishment (death penalty?).

You're welcome to argue against these things but you shouldn't use the "it's wrong cause the founding fathers said this and that"-argument. You should use real and good arguments instead like "but the Senate is good because a 100% representative legislature would be rather undemocratic because small states wouldn't be able to have much influence" or similar arguments.

----------


## Kludge

> Okay, it doesn't belong to this debate really but sure, I can make a little list it if you really want it so much.
> 
> Better protection of privacy.Fix flaw that makes Guantanamo prison able to exist.Abolish the Senate (only house of representatives). Maybe you wont agree but whatever...Definition of cruel punishment (death penalty?).


Okay, I see now. What you're citing, however, was not supposed to be determined by the Constitution. The Constitution is (relatively) short and to the point. It outlined what government could do, and then the Bill of Rights were supposed to ensure the government didn't go beyond that.

However, due to Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rulings, the Constitution has been perverted ("interpretated") to suit the corporations which have lobbied US politicians since the Constitutional government was put in place (for more info, a lot of insight into the US political system can be found by researching the Iron Triangle). 

What I'm really trying to say is that the Founders did not envision some of the "interpretations" of the SCOTUS, and so they did not define things as well as they perhaps should have. Thus, it is the duty of people to elect representatives who will not do what you have listed (cruel punishment or the violation of privacy). It could be done by amending the Constitution, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon given the current political climate in the US. The Founders were perhaps too humble and left a lot of the decision-making to the current leaders.

The Constitution (with the Bill of Rights) isn't perfect, but it does help us maintain some liberties. If we had the chance, I'm sure we'd revise it so that phrases were more clearly defined and the government were further restricted from infringing on rights of others. That said, we can't even keep the government branches to respect the rights we're supposed to have now, which is why we're rallying for the Constitution, perhaps to the point where it could be interpreted as worship. 

I don't quite understand why you oppose the Senate. You know that they are directly elected now in the United States?

(P.S. I need to leave and won't be back for a few hours)

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Okay, I see now. What you're citing, however, was not supposed to be determined by the Constitution. The Constitution is (relatively) short and to the point. It outlined what government could do, and then the Bill of Rights were supposed to ensure the government didn't go beyond that.


The fact that you have the Bill of Rights as amendments is because of disagreements among the founders. Otherwise, it would be a part of the original Constitution.




> I don't quite understand why you oppose the Senate. You know that they are directly elected now in the United States?


Still, rather irrelevant in this debate but okay let me say why. I believe in proportional representation, like in the House of Representatives because... well I guess you understand why I think that. I don't think that Wyoming deserve as many Senators as California for example (because of the population). I don't think you are an idiot if you disagree with me as long as you use a good argument (such as the one I wrote in the previous post) and not just reverence for the founders.'

l also think I'll go away for at least a couple of hours. I think I have made my point clear. To conclude, I think that political arguments never should be based on the opinions of the founders or on the intent of the Constitution (even though the opinions of the founders often were good and even though the intent of the Constitution was good).

And also, just because of this Congress thing and the other examples I brought up, I am a Swedish citizen and of course how the political system in the United States works is up to you, the people of the US to decide. I wont intervene and I haven't done so in this thread neither. I just said, no Constitution is perfect and I was asked to point out examples in the US Constitution.

----------


## Minarchy4Sale

Unlike the Constitution of Sweden, the Constitution of the U.S. while flawed and imperfect, is deeply rooted in the 'natural law'.  It, more than any other document, perhaps with the exception of the declaration of independence, reflects the highest values of our society, and the fundamental rights of man.

Honestly, I cant imagine a socialist even beginning to understand.  The values that our constitution reflects are largely foreign to socialism.

We do not worship the Constitution, We worship God, whose natural and rational law is reflected in it.  Natural law is so perfect that even Atheists can see the value in it.

----------


## idiom

> The fact that you have the Bill of Rights as amendments is because of disagreements among the founders. Otherwise, it would be a part of the original Constitution.
> 
> 
> Still, rather irrelevant in this debate but okay let me say why. I believe in proportional representation, like in the House of Representatives because... well I guess you understand why I think that. I don't think that Wyoming deserve as many Senators as California for example (because of the population). I don't think you are an idiot if you disagree with me as long as you use a good argument (such as the one I wrote in the previous post) and not just reverence for the founders.'
> 
> l also think I'll go away for at least a couple of hours. I think I have made my point clear. To conclude, I think that political arguments never should be based on the opinions of the founders or on the intent of the Constitution (even though the opinions of the founders often were good and even though the intent of the Constitution was good).
> 
> And also, just because of this Congress thing and the other examples I brought up, I am a Swedish citizen and of course how the political system in the United States works is up to you, the people of the US to decide. I wont intervene and I haven't done so in this thread neither.


The Untied States is supposed to function like the EU. The Senate gives each country equal representation, and the Congress gives each person equal representation. This stops a heavily populated country like California from forcing Wyoming to operate in certain ways simply because the people of California get an idea in their heads about how the people of Wyoming should live.

If the House and the Senate can't agree then maybe they shouldn't and the law shouldn't be passed until it is fair to all the countries and all the people. If you can't make it fair to enough countries then just pass it in your own country and move along. When Turkey Joins the EU do you think that their greater population should allow them a say in how hospitals, schools and churches should be run in Sweden?

The two houses are designed to slow things down. The amendment to allow the Senators to be directly elected instead of being appointed as ambassadors by each state was probably a misguided one.

It would be curious, wouldn't it, to have the Presidency rotating through each state annually. That would probably lower the status of the Executive Branch a fair bit.


By the way I am from New Zealand where we have one House, MMP representation and a three paragraph founding document that is a hell of a lot harder to intepret than the entire US constitution.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Honestly, I cant imagine a socialist even beginning to understand.


I can't imagine you even beginning to understand the purpose of this thread.  It wasn't about arguing against your Constitution as "Objectivist" also thought. It was about using the Consitution as the base for an argument.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Unlike the Constitution of Sweden, the Constitution of the U.S. while flawed and imperfect, is deeply rooted in the 'natural law'.


Whether these two constitutions are based on 'natural law' can be debated for ages. One thing is for sure though, none of them is perfect and none of them is better than the other in every single way.

----------


## Conza88

> Well, I'm a Socialist and believe in the welfare state. Ron Paul clearly stands for the opposite. However, that's another debate.


Voluntary or coercive socialist?

Oh wait! It's already self evident.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Voluntary or coercive socialist?


Voluntary. I don't believe in a Cuban-like system from which you can't emigrate. As John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, I think that you give up certain freedoms in exchange for security in a country. I know that many of you don't believe in the social contract but that's another discussion. I listed those philosophers and politicans because I wanted to show you that I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans tend to worship.

Edit: Unrelated: No offence but don't you think that your signature is excessively big?

----------


## idiom

Again in case you missed my post, the Contitution is designed like the EU to protect various countries from each other.

You seem to think China or Turkey should be able to tell Sweden how to run things?

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Again in case you missed my post, the Contitution is designed like the EU to protect various countries from each other.
> 
> You seem to think China or Turkey should be able to tell Sweden how to run things?


That is true. That is the historical background for why the Constitution is like it is.

No, I do not think China and Turkey should be able to do that. I am a regionalist.

However, one could argue now that the Constitution should be developed so it's more up-to-date. I think that I personally would support such an update if I lived in the United States. However, if you don't agree with me, fine. As long as you don't use that lousy argument I wrote about (by now I guess you know what argument).

----------


## Conza88

> Voluntary.


Oh cool, so you don't believe in the the re-distribution of wealth? Some socialist / statist you are! 




> I don't believe in a Cuban-like system from which you can't emigrate. As John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, I think that you give up certain freedoms in exchange for security in a country.


Also Soviet like. But hey, you also need a passport to leave the United States. 




> I know that many of you don't believe in the social contract but that's another discussion.


Got 5 minutes?

YouTube - The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins




> I listed those philosophers and politicans because I wanted to show you that I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans tend to worship.


I don't worship persons. Only ideas and reason, truth and justice. If you actually want to take on the big guns, you should try to use any of these blokes; Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Lysander Spooner, Murray N. Rothbard, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Good luck  And as for "I wanted to show you that I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans" - doesn't mean $#@! mate... I want to abolish the state because it violates the non aggression axiom (principle) and private property rights, "anarchists" want to do the same, for the very opposite reason.




> Edit: Unrelated: No offence but don't you think that your signature is excessively big?


Nope. Do you want to have a vote, organize a union / protest about it? Start a riot in a street? Abolition some property? 

Unrelated: What theory of value do you subscribe too? Why shouldn't the minimum wage be $50/hr? Have you solved the problem of Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth yet? What books have you read that are remotely freemarket or have anything to do with Libertarianism. Don't be shy to say none.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Oh cool, so you don't believe in the the re-distribution of wealth? Some socialist / statist you are!


Yes, I do. I can't se the relevance in this thread for it though.





> Also Soviet like.


Well, I disagree with many policies of the Soviet Union also.




> But hey, you also need a passport to leave the United States.


This is not true. Most often, you need it for entering another country though. And even if you don't need it to go out, you should bring your passport when going to for example Mexico so you can go BACK to the US if you want to.




> Got 5 minutes?


Actually, I haven't got 5 minutes. 1 minute would be okay but 5 minutes is to long. One shouldn't have to use 5 minutes, especially not if he talks that fast. If you've got 1 minute, read questions 5, 7, 9 and 14 at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html




> I don't worship persons. Only ideas and reason, truth and justice. If you actually want to take on the big guns, you should try to use any of these blokes; Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Lysander Spooner, Murray N. Rothbard, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Good luck  And as for "I wanted to show you that I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans" - doesn't mean $#@! mate... I want to abolish the state because it violates the non aggression axiom (principle) and private property rights, "anarchists" want to do the same, for the very opposite reason.


Indeed it means something. It means I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans agree with.




> Nope. Do you want to have a vote, organize a union / protest about it? Start a riot in a street? Abolition some property?


No. No. No.




> Unrelated: What theory of value do you subscribe too? Why shouldn't the minimum wage be $50/hr? Have you solved the problem of Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth yet? What books have you read that are remotely freemarket or have anything to do with Libertarianism. Don't be shy to say none.


None. I never said the minimum wage shouldn't be $50/hr. No. None. 

BTW, I think we should stop being very off-topic here even though you are being offended by me being a Socialist. What should be discussed is reverence for the founders.

----------


## Danke

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.
> 
> The founding fathers themselves didn't agree on everything and also, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> 
> However, I think Ron Paul is rather okay. I am a Socialist (which is the opposite of Ron Paul) but I love human rights and democracy and I hate torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq (in those areas, I agree with Ron Paul).


I'd change that from "constitutional right"  to "constitutionally protected right"  The founder's did not believe the State (or King) gave people rights.  

The founders intent is not irrelevant.  It is used by the courts.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> The founders intent is not irrelevant.  It is used by the courts.


In judicial contexts, the intent is of course not irrelevant. I mean in the political debate regarding whether some rights in the Constitution should be kept or not.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

BTW, when it comes to the right to bear arms, I'm rather neutral. I think there are good arguments on both sides but the intent of the founding fathers-argument is a very bad argument, I think. That is the point of this whole thread.

----------


## Danke

> In judicial contexts, the intent is of course not irrelevant. I mean in the political debate regarding whether some rights in the Constitution should be kept or not.


Doesn't sound like a very productive debate.  Because what you'd end up debating could be irrelevant to the meaning of the Constitutionally protected right.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Doesn't sound like a very productive debate.


The debate regarding the relevance of the founders intent?

----------


## Conza88

> Yes, I do. I can't se the relevance in this thread for it though.


The relevance to the thread = you're not a Voluntary socialist. You're a COERCIVE socialist. Your ideology is immoral and unethical. You seek to rule over others. To use force and violence through the state if they do not comply. Taxation is theft. And is a redistribution of wealth. 




> Well, I disagree with many policies of the Soviet Union also.


Like the public ownership of the means of production?




> This is not true. Most often, you need it for entering another country though. And even if you don't need it to go out, you should bring your passport when going to for example Mexico so you can go BACK to the US if you want to.


When traveling by air you do. 




> Actually, I haven't got 5 minutes. 1 minute would be okay but 5 minutes is to long. One shouldn't have to use 5 minutes, especially not if he talks that fast.


Ignorance is piss.




> Indeed it means something. It means I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans agree with.


And what does it mean exactly? 




> No. No. No.


Why not? You don't want to abolition private property? 





> None. I never said the minimum wage shouldn't be $50/hr. No. None.


Umm, you don't believe in the Labor Theory of Value? You think it should be $50/hr? Ok why not make the minimum wage $1,000 hr? See any problems there? Yeah I didn't think you had. (Solved the calculation problem of socialism = it will inevitably fail, always) And (You haven't read anything to do with Liberty)




> BTW, I think we should stop being very off-topic here even though you are being offended by me being a Socialist. What should be discussed is reverence for the founders.


I'm not offended at you being a VOLUNTARY socialist, but you are a COERCIVE socialist. Which you have to be, if you believe in taxation. (Theft)

----------


## LibertyEagle

Many of us agree with the principles upon which our country was founded and which were embodied in the Constitution and their other writings, by our Founding Fathers.  Many Americans mouth strong support for the Constitution, but don't stop to realize that the actions being taken by our government are subverting the very thing they say they support.  So, when you see some of us talking about the Constitution, many times it is to point this out to them.  It's called "common ground".

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> The relevance to the thread = you're not a Voluntary socialist. You're a COERCIVE socialist. Your ideology is immoral and unethical. You seek to rule over others. To use force and violence through the state if they do not comply. Taxation is theft. And is a redistribution of wealth.


I think you are a very evil person. That and what you just wrote is indeed totally irrelevant in this thread.





> Like the public ownership of the means of production?


No






> When traveling by air you do.


So?







> And what does it mean exactly?


Exactly what I said. 







> Why not? You don't want to abolition private property?


Not necessary. No, I don't want that.







> Umm, you don't believe in the Labor Theory of Value? You think it should be $50/hr? Ok why not make the minimum wage $1,000 hr? See any problems there? Yeah I didn't think you had. (Solved the calculation problem of socialism = it will inevitably fail, always) And (You haven't read anything to do with Liberty)


No. I don't know. Cause it's to much. Yes. Well, I had. No. AND YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT I'VE READ HAHA. Typical Libertarian "I know most cause I've read Adam Smith and Ayn Rand"-argument (makes me puke).






> I'm not offended at you being a VOLUNTARY socialist, but you are a COERCIVE socialist. Which you have to be, if you believe in taxation. (Theft)


Since I believe in the social contract, it's for me not theft.



Again, it would be nice if we could drop this discussion since it is very off-topic. Let's discuss the relevance of the intent of the founders in political argumentation.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Many of us agree with the principles upon which our country was founded and which were embodied in the Constitution and their other writings, by our Founding Fathers.  Many Americans mouth strong support for the Constitution, but don't stop to realize that the actions being taken by our government are subverting the very thing they say they support.  So, when you see some of us talking about the Constitution, many times it is to point this out to them.  It's called "common ground".


Well, okay. Thank you for a rather good answer and a relevant reply without personal accusations and inquiry.

----------


## Conza88

> I think you are a very evil person. That and what you just wrote is indeed totally irrelevant in this thread.


Why am I evil?  I support the non aggression axiom (principle) and voluntary mutual exchange between consenting individuals. You violate both. 




> No


Hahah! You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production" - LMFAO, that is what socialism is DEFINED AS!  




> So?


That's what was meant. So I'm correct. 




> Exactly what I said.


_"Indeed it means something. It means I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans agree with. "_

That's great because no-body gives a fck. 




> Not necessary. No, I don't want that.


Ok... so you're not a Marxist then.




> No. No. I don't know (totally irrelevant in this thread). No. AND YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT I'VE READ HAHA. Typical Libertarian "I know most cause I've read Adam Smith and Ayn Rand"-argument (makes me puke).


Yes, you don't know much do you.  Hey, at least you're honest  
I DO KNOW you haven't read anything to do with Liberty or Libertarianism - HOW? Because you said so. 

Ummm, I despise Adam Smith and Ayn Rand. *Try again.*




> Since I believe in the social contract, it's for me not theft.


You can _believe_ what you want. But it's still theft. 




> Again, it would be nice if we could drop this discussion since it is very off-topic. Let's discuss the relevance of the intent of the founders in political argumentation.


Nah, this is fun  Let's discuss how socialism is impossible, immoral and would lead to the deaths of roughly a few billion people.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Conza,

Please keep the thread on-topic.  If you want to start another thread to have this side discussion with him, feel free to do so.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Hahah! You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production" - LMFAO, that is what socialism is DEFINED AS!


Stop making a fool out of  yourself. If you could read better, *I said I didn't disagree with it.* 




> _"Indeed it means something. It means I do agree with many people that some Ron Paul fans agree with. "_
> 
> That's great because no-body gives a fck.


You don't know that. 





> Ok... so you're not a Marxist then.


Correct.





> Yes, you don't know much do you.  Hey, at least you're honest


I didn't say that. You don't know anything about what I know.



> I DO KNOW you haven't read anything to do with Liberty or Libertarianism - HOW? Because you said so.


This claim is simply not true.




> You can _believe_ what you want. But it's still theft.


Sigh... Okay my counter argument is: You can _believe_ what you want. But it's still is NOT theft. 





> Nah, this is fun  Let's discuss how socialism is impossible, immoral and would lead to the deaths of roughly a few billion people.


No, please do that in another thread.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Hehe, this is hilarious:

Me: Well, I disagree with many policies of the Soviet Union also.
Conza88: Like the public ownership of the means of production?
Me: No
Conza88: Hahah! You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production" - LMFAO, that is what socialism is DEFINED AS!

WTF??? Legendary. xD

Conza88: That means I DO believe in the public ownership of the means of production. Pretty funny that you write "LMAO" when it is I who should laugh at you.

I don't disagree with the "public ownership of the means of production". However, Conza88 see this as me saying:
     I don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production".

     I agree with the "public ownership of the means of production". However, Conza88 see this as me saying:
I disagree with the "public ownership of the means of production"

----------


## Conza88

> Stop making a fool out of  yourself. If you could read better, *I said I didn't disagree with it.*


Ah true, the 2 letter responses tripped me up. I thought I had asked if you agree with it. I'm also used too seeing an attempt at a logical explanation of a position. In hindsight, I shouldn't be suprised about you not providing any. You are a socialist after all! 




> Correct.


Leninist? Fabian? Trotskyite? Chomskyite? Maoist? Che fanboy? Come on help us out here.. 




> I didn't say that. You don't know anything about what I know.
> This claim is simply not true.


And now we start to see the first contradictions:




> Unrelated: What theory of value do you subscribe too? Why shouldn't the minimum wage be $50/hr? Have you solved the problem of Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth yet? *What books have you read that are remotely freemarket or have anything to do with Libertarianism. Don't be shy to say none.*


You responded with:



> None. I never said the minimum wage shouldn't be $50/hr. No. *None.*






> Sigh... Okay my counter argument is: You can _believe_ what you want. But it's still is NOT theft.


That's not actually an argument. I put forward mine - and you simply dismissed it. 5 minutes wasn't good enough for you. You wanted a one minute refutation. 




> No, please do that in another thread.


Ok. Make it. Define your terms. Outline exactly the premises / positions you hold and why... Then we can maybe get somewhere.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Again, please stop derailing this thread, Conza.  Start your own thread if you wish.

Any further off-topic posts may be deleted per forum guidelines.

EDIT:  Oh hell, nevermind.  The OP, by replying to the off-topic posts, is furthering the derailing.

Have fun.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Ah true, the 2 letter responses tripped me up. I thought I had asked if you agree with it. I'm also used too seeing an attempt at a logical explanation of a position. In hindsight, I shouldn't be suprised about you not providing any. You are a socialist after all!


Haha, don't try to make me look like a moron when it was your own logic that failed you. Don't blame me man. You can only blame yourself.




> Leninist? Fabian? Trotskyite? Chomskyite? Maoist? Che fanboy? Come on help us out here..


Totally irrelevant of course but, what the heck... Ideologically, I am a Social Democrat.  I do not support the Social Democratic party in Sweden though.





> Ok. Make it. Define your terms. Outline exactly the premises / positions you hold and why... Then we can maybe get somewhere.


Actually, I do not have time/energy for it. I don't care about it. You are the one who cares. One of us is interested in the matter that should be discussed in this thread and that happens to be me. Sorry, but if you don't want to stick to the topic, you should leave this thread.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Again, please stop derailing this thread, Conza.  Start your own thread if you wish.
> 
> Any further off-topic posts may be deleted per forum guidelines.


YES! Finally! or...?




> EDIT:  Oh hell, nevermind.  The OP, by replying to the off-topic posts, is furthering the derailing.
> 
> Have fun.


NOOOOOOO!!!!


I think we should stick to the topic actually. I could stop answering Conza's irrelevant questions from now on.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> YES! Finally! or...?
> 
> NOOOOOOO!!!!
> 
> 
> I think we should stick to the topic actually. I could stop answering Conza's irrelevant questions from now on.


Too late.

Start a new thread if you wish.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

As a moderator said to me via PM, If I want the thread to stay on-topic, I TOO have to abide by it. I hereby stop replying to off-topic posts.

----------


## Conza88

> Haha, don't try to make me look like a moron when it was your own logic that failed you. Don't blame me man. You can only blame yourself.


Haha, that's funny. Calling me a moron when you don't even know what 'logic' means. It didn't fail me. My memory did. And my inexperience with responding to 2 letter responses with absolutely no reference to the previous question at all.




> Totally irrelevant of course but, what the heck... Ideologically, I am a Social Democrat.  I do not support the Social Democratic party in Sweden though.


Yeah I considered that. Dismissed it because from my experience they generally introduce themselves as social-democrats right off the bat, and not as plain "socialists" as too avoid the links with Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc.. in the end all it is, is a pathetic attempt at ignoring history.

Soviet Union - 97% public ownership. N. Korea, Mao, Castro: whatever place it is - socialism leads to totalitarianism. Why not some of the European countries yet? Because they have relatively free markets, they just re-distribute the wealth afterwords (theft). And they don't have the balls or STUPIDITY to get rid of what is left on the market pricing system.




> Actually, I do not have time/energy for it. I don't care about it. You are the one who cares. One of us is interested in the matter that should be discussed in this thread and that happens to be me. Sorry, but if you don't want to stick to the topic, you should leave this thread.


Meh, I'll just depart for the day with this.

Six Miracles of Socialism:

There is no unemployment, but no one works.
No one works, but everyone gets paid.
Everyone gets paid, but there is nothing to buy with the money.
No one can buy anything, but everyone owns everything.
Everyone owns everything, but no one is satisfied.
No one is satisfied, but 99 percent of the people vote for the system.
Why Common Thieves Are Better Than Socialists:

Thieves have the guts to do the job themselves.
Thieves don't steal in the name of "justice".
Thieves don't masquerade as "liberals".
Thieves don't comprise a unified political mob of millions.
Thieves don't loath freedom and individuality.
Thieves don't promote mind control via "political correctness" and "hate" crimes.
Thieves don't indoctrinate our children to be unquestioning drones of the state.
Thieves can be arrested.
 Mark Gilmore

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Nice move there since I can't answer. Well, I had my laugh for today  SO... does anyone want to continue to debate the topic in a civilized manner? I think it would be a very *logical* thing to do.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> In judicial contexts, the intent is of course not irrelevant. I mean in the political debate regarding whether some rights in the Constitution should be kept or not.


It bears repeating that the constitution does not give us the rights enumerated in it.

Since you stared with a second amendment argument, consider that the right to self-defense is the primal law of nature, for man or beast...

----------


## MPN

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter.


The United States Constitution is the highest law in our country. It is a document that was the product of careful consideration, precise historical analysis, deep philosophical reflection and extreme debate. It was ratified by the people of the original states, and by all those who entered the union at a later date. The U.S. Constitution’s supreme authority was acknowledged in the people’s acceptance of the document. Thus, the domestic actions of all are subject to it. 

In some sense, you have elevated the level of debate, while those you are debating remain on a lower level. You attempt to enter the debate of philosophical and political theory. Meanwhile, your opponents remain at the level of domestic U.S. policy.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> It bears repeating that the constitution does not give us the rights enumerated in it.
> 
> Since you stared with a second amendment argument, consider that the right to self-defense is the primal law of nature, for man or beast...


Well, when it comes to debating whether for example the US should keep the right to remain silent for example (one right in the bill of rights), then it is still irrelevant what the founders' opinions on the matter was.

The second paragraph, well, it belongs to a debate whether a citizens of a country should have the right to bear arms or not, a debate which we aren't taking here.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Well, when it comes to debating whether for example the US should keep the right to remain silent for example (one right in the bill of rights), then it is still irrelevant what the founders' opinions on the matter was.
> 
> The second paragraph, well, it belongs to a debate whether a citizens of a country should have the right to bear arms or not, a debate which we aren't taking here.



Perhaps I am just a simple activist, but it seems to me you do not understand the concept of natural rights. Governments and people cannot keep or give away those rights,  they can either celebrate them, or repress them. The US Constitution celebrates these rights, hence our respect and dedication to it

----------


## MPN

> Perhaps I am just a simple activist, but it seems to me you do not understand the concept of natural rights. Governments and people cannot keep or give away those rights,  they can either celebrate them, or repress them. The US Constitution celebrates these rights, hence our respect and dedication to it


I think, actually, that he is debating the very existence of certain natural rights.

----------


## acptulsa

> I think, actually, that he is debating the very existence of certain natural rights.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


Not the Constitution, Swede--the Declaration.  And no, we don't worship either--but we feel we have good reason to celebrate both.  If people don't hold the truth to be self evident that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights back where you come from, then that's a damned shame and I pity you.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Not the Constitution, Swede--the Declaration.


Well, if you say so, I think it's quite as irrational to worship the Declaration of Independence as it is to worship the Constitution.




> And no, we don't worship either--but we feel we have good reason to celebrate both. If people don't hold the truth to be self evident that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights back where you come from, then that's a damned shame and I pity you.


I don't say you shouldn't celebrate the existence of a political document (I'm can celebrate when good Swedish laws gets established and when bad Swedish laws are abolished). I'm saying political documents aren't holy. Some people in my country don't hold the truth to be self evident that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and some people (yes, they exist) in your country don't do that either and that is nothing to be sad about, I think and I don't think it's a "damned shame".

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I don't say you shouldn't celebrate the existence of a political document (I'm can celebrate when good Swedish laws gets established and when bad Swedish laws are abolished). I'm saying political documents aren't holy. Some people in my country don't hold the truth to be self evident that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and some people (yes, they exist) in your country don't do that either and that is nothing to be sad about, I think and I don't think it's a "damned shame".


You're missing the point.  Our country was founded with the premise that each individual owned their rights.  They were not granted by government.  Thus, government should not be able to take them away.

And yes, it IS sad, if some do not believe that, because that makes them fools who are willingly putting shackles on their own ankles.  Regardless, it doesn't matter if some are stupid.  It does not give them the right to infringe on everyone else's liberty.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> You're missing the point.  Our country was founded with the premise that each individual owned their rights.  They were not granted by government.  Thus, government should not be able to take them away.


I have not missed this point. I have actually never thought this wasn't the case. If I believe in natural rights, I believe in them because of my own reasoning, not because of some old texts (dare I say scriptures? No.).




> And yes, it IS sad, if some do not believe that, because that makes them fools who are willingly putting shackles on their own ankles.


Well, I don't understand why he would pity ME for it. I don't suffer from it.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm saying political documents aren't holy. Some people in my country don't hold the truth to be self evident that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and some people (yes, they exist) in your country don't do that either and that is nothing to be sad about, I think and I don't think it's a "damned shame".


I told you we don't worship them.  We cherish them.  There is a difference.  And I _am_ sad that people don't believe it self-evident that we are endowed with unalienable rights, because these are the kind of people who work to introduce tyranny into the world.  Furthermore, I have the right to be sad about that.

Now, you can agree with this last or not.  But neither you nor I can prevent my sorrow.  Nor my pity for you.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Well, if you say so, I think it's quite as irrational to worship the Declaration of Independence as it is to worship the Constitution.


Since everyone here has explained we don't worship any piece of paper, nor do we worship the natural rights enumerated on our founding documents, I find it quite irrational of someone to keep acting like we do. Who do you think worships the DoI or Constitution, and why do you believe that?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, when it comes to debating whether for example the US should keep the right to remain silent for example (one right in the bill of rights), then it is still irrelevant what the founders' opinions on the matter was.


What?  Don't you see that you have just named one of the major reasons for our Constitution?  It's primary purpose was to bind down the government.  The Constitution set up boundaries for the government to operate within.  It included checks and balances on that power and a reset button, just in case.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution” -- Thomas Jefferson

Our country was founded as a republic, or rule by law (not man).  It was done so to protect the rights of the minority, or one, from the force of the majority.




> The second paragraph, well, it belongs to a debate whether a citizens of a country should have the right to bear arms or not, a debate which we aren't taking here.


"of a country"?  I'll tell you what.  You do what you want in your own country.  But, here in ours, we have the right to bear arms.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Since everyone here has explained we don't worship any piece of paper, nor do we worship the natural rights enumerated on our founding documents, I find it quite irrational of someone to keep acting like we do. Who do you think worships the DoI or Constitution, and why do you believe that?


I didn't say YOU do it. I said many Ron Paul supporters do it.

----------


## georgiaboy

To the OP, the primary reason for invoking the constitution when discussing American politics is based on the fact that we are intended to be a nation which is based on the rule of law.  The Constitution is the highest law in the land.  Therefore we must refer to it, and all our lawmakers and the branches of government take an oath to protect and defend it.  Because of the rule of law, they are also supposed to abide by it.

The only truly legal way to act contrary to what's in the constitution is by the amendment process.  Anything else is acting outside what the constitution defines, and thus acting outside the rule of law.  Anarchy.

And yeah, we also invoke the constitution because we happen to agree with the lion's share of what's in it and it's primary purpose -- to limit the reach and power of government, and celebrate and protect the pre-existing rights of the individual toward freedom and against tyranny.

----------


## acptulsa

> I didn't say YOU do it. I said many Ron Paul supporters do it.


Do you worship your mother, or merely cherish her?  Can you prove it?  What gives you the right to tell us what is in our hearts?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I have not missed this point. I have actually never thought this wasn't the case. If I believe in natural rights, I believe in them because of my own reasoning, not because of some old texts (dare I say scriptures? No.).


We believe in natural rights because of our own reasoning too.

I'm not sure why you're barking up this tree.  It's really getting strange.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> What?  Don't you see that you have just named one of the major reasons for our Constitution?  It's primary purpose was to bind down the government.  The Constitution set up boundaries for the government to operate within.  It included checks and balances on that power and a reset button, just in case. Our country was founded as a republic, or rule by law (not man).  It was done so to protect the rights of the minority, or one, from the force of the majority.


What what? I know all this already. I don't really understand how that was a good follow up on my message.




> "of a country"?  I'll tell you what.  You do what you want in your own country.  But, here in ours, we have the right to bear arms.


 Errr.. yes! And I don't mind! Keep that right if you want to. I never said anything negative about it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I didn't say YOU do it. I said many Ron Paul supporters do it.


I think you are wrong.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> We believe in natural rights because of our own reasoning too.


Okay, just to get things straight, who are "we"?




> I think you are wrong.


Well, okay, I respect that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What what? I know all this already. I don't really understand how that was a good follow up on my message.


You brought up debating the right to remain silent.

You must know this is a right we have.  It should not be up for discussion.  Period.  THAT is why I brought up the Constitution.  Just because you or someone else would like to give away their own liberty, does not give them the right to give away MINE.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> You brought up debating the right to remain silent.
> 
> You must know this is a right we have.  It should not be up for discussion.  Period.  THAT is why I brought up the Constitution.  Just because you or someone else would like to give away their own liberty, does not give them the right to give away MINE.


I brought up a scenario that would consist of the debate of the right to remain silent.

I know you have this right and I also know we have it and I support it to 100% but NOT because of some old piece of text which I trust in blindly but because of my own reasoning. That's my point, and yes I know you also think so.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Okay, just to get things straight, who are "we"?


Who is it that you are making all kinds of false claims about and even though you're told you're wrong, you keep persisting?

----------


## acptulsa

I ask again, what gives your the right to tell us what is in our hearts?  Have you found some official Church of Constitution Worship somewhere?  Because I've spent the vast majority of my life here and been to the majority of our states, and I've never seen one.

I cherish my Constitution as I cherish my freedom and my right to self-determination.  It is a part of who I am in a way, it would seem, you cannot understand.  Now, are you asking what is in my heart or telling?  Because if it is the latter, you are irrational and I will exercise my freedom to be quit of you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I brought up a scenario that would consist of the debate of the right to remain silent.
> 
> I know you have this right and I also know we have it and I support it to 100% but NOT because of some old piece of text which I trust in blindly but because of my own reasoning. That's my point, and yes I know you also think so.


I, and others, have explained this to you about a zillion times.  Go back up and review the thread.

I'm done playing your little game.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Who is it that you are making all kinds of false claims about and even though you're told you're wrong, you keep persisting?


Well, I talk about many Ron Paul supporters.

----------


## georgiaboy

To some of your other points, OP,

You're correct that the basic construct of the constitution is based on the assumptions (1) in inalienable rights of individuals and these rights hold true (2) as endowed by their Creator.

One could argue that the second assumption has been under attack for quite a while now, and it does make one wonder what that does to undermine the first assumption and therefore the constitution supported by them.

It is easy to see that if one doesn't hold to these assumptions, then reasoning from the constitution only follows to my earlier point vis a vis the rule of law.

Also, though, if one doesn't hold to the assumption of the rule of law, then the ability to reason from the constitution also doesn't hold, and we're back to anarchy again.

----------


## acptulsa

> Well, I talk about many Ron Paul supporters.


Provide a link or your little game turns into Solitaire.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> I ask again, what gives your the right to tell us what is in our hearts?  Have you found some official Church of Constitution Worship somewhere?  Because I've spent the vast majority of my life here and been to the majority of our states, and I've never seen one.


 I don't know what is in your hearts.




> I cherish my Constitution as I cherish my freedom and my right to self-determination.  It is a part of who I am in a way, it would seem, you cannot understand.  Now, are you asking what is in my heart or telling?  Because if it is the latter, you are irrational and I will exercise my freedom to be quit of you.


Go on, cherish your Constitution. There's nothing wrong with that.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Provide a link or your little game turns into Solitaire.


And Ron Paul himself of course, (two last paragraphs): http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

----------


## acptulsa

"Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state."--_Ron Paul_

You've just pointed to 'evidence' that fills your theory with holes.  Moreso as it comes from a devout Christian.

If one believes that God intends us to be free, then one could see the Constitution as helping do God's will.  As one could see a pastor as helping do God's will.  Now, neither the pastor nor the document needs be worshipped to do God's will...

----------


## Non-Libertarian

May I just ask one thing here to get this straight. Do you, Ron Paul supporters in this thread, agree with the following statement?

"The right to bear arms is a right that should exist because our founding fathers supported it and it says so in the Constitution."

Do you agree to this statement?

"The right to bear arms is a right that should exist because my reasoning says it's necessary to the security of a free State and luckily, the founding fathers had the same view as I have."

----------


## acptulsa

> May I just ask one thing here to get this straight. Do you, Ron Paul supporters in this thread, agree with the following statement?
> 
> "The right to bear arms is a right that should exist because our founding fathers supported it and it says so in the Constitution."
> 
> Do you agree to this statement?
> 
> "The right to bear arms is a right that should exist because my reasoning says it's necessary to the security of a free State and I'm happy the founding fathers had the same view as I have."


The right to bear arms is expedient to both our inalienable right to defend ourselves and those we love, and to help ensure our right to liberty and self-determination.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> The right to bear arms is expedient to both our inalienable right to defend ourselves and those we love, and to help ensure our right to liberty and self-determination.


Okay, I think it's very irrational if you think that just because the founding fathers thought that. However, if you think that because of your own reasoning, then I don't think it's very irrational. This is the point I have been trying to make in several different ways.

----------


## georgiaboy

Well, logically, dude, if a government wanted to effectively neuter the ability for the governed to have a say in how they're being governed, one of the first things the government would do would be to have the governed relenquish their weapons, wouldn't you say?

----------


## georgiaboy

Non-L,

Have you ever followed the advice of a doctor or lawyer or other expert in their field, even though you really didn't understand all the details of what they were telling you?

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Well, logically, dude, if a government wanted to effectively neuter the ability for the governed to have a say in how they're being governed, one of the first things the government would do would be to have the governed relenquish their weapons, wouldn't you say?


Well, that is in the debate about whether gun control is good or not. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is whether the founding fathers and the Constitution should be trusted blindly. Not whether that specific right should exist or not. I'm criticizing fundamentalism.

----------


## georgiaboy

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Non-L,
> 
> Have you ever followed the advice of a doctor or lawyer or other expert in their field, even though you really didn't understand all the details of what they were telling you?


No, I haven't.

----------


## MPN

> Okay, I think it's very irrational if you think that just because the founding fathers thought that. However, if you think that because of your own reasoning, then I don't think it's very irrational. This is the point I have been trying to make in several different ways.


You are trolling for debate. If you actually wanted to make a point, you would have engaged my previous comment. 

Stop trying to answer a question of domestic policy from a philosophical position.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"


You have obvioously missed the point of this whole discussion. We are not debating whether gun control is good or not.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> You are trolling for debate. If you actually wanted to make a point, you would have engaged my previous comment. 
> 
> Stop trying to answer a question of domestic policy from a philosophical position.


What question are you talking about? It is everybody against me in this discussion so I can't answer everything, it's impossible. Sorry for that.

----------


## georgiaboy

so waddaya think, do we seem like fundies to ya?

----------


## georgiaboy

> No, I haven't.


liar.

----------


## acptulsa

Now then.  Do you say that the policies of Sweden's government are good?  And if so, do you deny that they have helped drive the rate of unmarried preagnancies up to 54% by 1996?  And if you do agree to the first and do not deny the second, are you arguing that children are usually harmed by having a father figure in their young lives?




> liar.


Easy now.  If you lived in a socialist nation, you would never take advice or sign a document you didn't understand.  Hell, I don't either--I have to satisfy myself the advice is good before I take it, and I live here were it is most often good!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law.


Exactly. It is the law. If you follow the *"rule of law"*, you must reference the law itself.

The Constitution is an over-arching strategy. It does not have the details. Therefore, it's *intent* is very important. After that, you should make sure that all detail laws follow the master laws strategic direction.

The frustration I often have with those who oppose the right to bear arms is that they completely ignore the law. For instance:

*Anti-gun:* Why should people have guns, it's dangerous?

*Pro-gun:* Let's check the law. OK, the Second Amendment says that we always have that right.

*Anti-gun:* So, it's an old law. It's still scary to have guns out there.

*Pro-gun:* They had very specific reasons and intent behind the Second Amendment, I can list them.

*Anti-gun:* I don't care. It's an old law, and they should be banned. We need to have new laws that ban guns.

*Pro-gun:* Let's look at the law again. You can amend the Constitution to change the Second Amendment.

*Anti-gun:* But I just want to have new laws, and I don't want to try to change the Constitution. We can just ban guns anyway, we know that's what we really need.

*Pro-gun:* That violates the Second Amendment.

*Anti-gun:* Who cares? It's what I want. And it's an old document. And you will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to prove me wrong. The Court can decide any way it wants, because the law is so very _flexible_.


Bottom line: When you ignore the law, the politicians do whatever they want. If George Bush or Barack Obama wants to bomb your country, no one can stop them. If they want to torture you, no one can stop them. If they want to take away rights, no one can stop them. If they want to take your property, no one can stop them. If they want to give their buddies trillions of taxpayers dollars, no one can stop them. That's what happens when the rule of law is ignored.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Now then.  Do you say that the policies of Sweden's government are good?  And if so, do you deny that they have helped drive the rate of unmarried preagnancies up to 54% by 1996?  And if you do agree to the first and do not deny the second, are you arguing that children are usually harmed by having a father figure in their young lives?


No, I don't say that the policies of Sweden's government are good.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't say that the policies of Sweden's government are good.


Fair enough.  So, you don't worship yours and we don't worship ours.  Perhaps the concept your are having trouble with is that ours is worth cherishing.  And I hope we are helping you to understand why.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Fair enough.  So, you don't worship yours and we don't worship ours.  Perhaps the concept your are having trouble with is that ours is worth cherishing.  And I hope we are helping you to understand why.


Err, are Obamas policies worth cherishing according to a Ron Paul fan? Well, I'll be damned.

By the way, let me come with one quote from Mike Huben's "A Non Libertarian FAQ" which I think is worth thinking about**:




> There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be questioned."


I have also noticed this kind of behaviour among Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. That is my point. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the Constitution, though.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Interesting discussion. Got to go. I'll may return in the future.

----------


## MPN

> What question are you talking about? It is everybody against me in this discussion so I can't answer everything, it's impossible. Sorry for that.


This debate is non existent. 

When it comes to U.S. law, the Constitution is not debatable. It is amendable, but not debatable. As it stands, perfect or imperfect, you have yourself acknowledged it as the supreme law. 

If you acknowledge its supremacy, it should be simple for you to wrap your mind around why  when questioned on something such as the right to bear arms, which is addressed in the Bill of Rights(which is, by design, no different than having been addressed in the actual constitution)  most people simply point to the Constitution.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Exactly. It is the law. If you follow the *"rule of law"*, you must reference the law itself.
> 
> The Constitution is an over-arching strategy. It does not have the details. Therefore, it's *intent* is very important. After that, you should make sure that all detail laws follow the master laws strategic direction.
> 
> The frustration I often have with those who oppose the right to bear arms is that they completely ignore the law. For instance:
> 
> *Anti-gun:* Why should people have guns, it's dangerous?
> 
> *Pro-gun:* Let's check the law. OK, the Second Amendment says that we always have that right.
> ...


Feel free to respond to the above *direct* answer to your question about why someone might want to reference the Constitution when you return...

----------


## acptulsa

> Err, are Obamas policies worth cherishing according to a Ron Paul fan? Well, I'll be damned.


I didn't say so explicitly, but as it was the subject of the conversation all along, I'm sure you know that I was talking about constitutions, not policies.  The point being that a good many of Obama's policies are in violation of our Constitution, while few of Sweden's sillier policies can make the same claim in respect to that constitution.




> By the way, let me come with one quote from Mike Huben's "A Non Libertarian FAQ" which I think is worth thinking about**:


Now you think about this.  The Constitution does not read the way our founding fathers wrote it.  For example, as written the document allows no one but white male land owners to vote.  This is no longer the case.  I defy you to find me a single post on this forum where (except, of course, in jest) anyone even suggests that the amendments that brought the vote to others should be repealed, much less one that argues that any great omniscience on the part of the founding fathers is the main reason why this should be done.

We compare the wisdom of our Supreme Court decisions to the wisdom of our founders, and we make our decisions accordingly.  I, for one, am very impressed by the decisions of the Burger Court.  Does this mean I worship the members of it?




> I have also noticed this kind of behaviour among Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. That is my point. There's nothing wrong with celebrating the Constitution, though.


Your perception is not my reality.

----------


## georgiaboy

So I thought about it for a minute, and Mike Huben's quote fails.

When interpreting the writings of others for understanding and application, intention is key, I don't care what the document is.

----------


## MPN

I still feel like the overall point here was missed, and that is bothering me. 

The U.S. Constitution says what it says. To point this out is not blind faith, it is simply pointing to fact.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> I didn't say YOU do it. I said many Ron Paul supporters do it.


This is a fallacy, and unless you can show an example, must be dismissed as a fabrication of your mind.  I didn't ask about myself, I asked about you and your perception. Again, please show me a specific example of Ron Paul supporters worshipping a document as you asserted in the OP



> May I just ask one thing here to get this straight. Do you, Ron Paul supporters in this thread, agree with the following statement?
> 
> "The right to bear arms is a right that should exist because our founding fathers supported it and it says so in the Constitution."
> 
> Do you agree to this statement?
> 
> "The right to bear arms is a right that should exist because my reasoning says it's necessary to the security of a free State and luckily, the founding fathers had the same view as I have."


Neither, all you present here are false choices in regards to your unsubstantiated assertion. The right to bear arms is simply the right to self-defense, the right to Life. The right to defend oneself predates governments.




> Well, that is in the debate about whether gun control is good or not. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is whether the founding fathers and the Constitution should be trusted blindly. Not whether that specific right should exist or not. I'm criticizing fundamentalism.


This has been explained ad nauseum, and your attempts at painting others in a negative light only illuminate your lack of reasoning (or unwillingness)




> What question are you talking about? It is everybody against me in this discussion so I can't answer everything, it's impossible. Sorry for that.


Then don't start. It is your responsibility to answer responses to your asseration. If you cant stand heat, don't go in the kitchen. What I see above is the excuse of the lazy, or worse...




> Err, are Obamas policies worth cherishing according to a Ron Paul fan? Well, I'll be damned.


http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

----------


## Kludge

> This debate is non existent.


I was hoping this post would go in a bit of a different direction...

----------


## acptulsa

> I still feel like the overall point here was missed, and that is bothering me. 
> 
> The U.S. Constitution says what it says. To point this out is not blind faith, it is simply pointing to fact.


The Swede was more interested in how we feel about it than what it says, I think.  The Swedish constitution says what it says, too, but our friend doesn't seem very fond of it for all of that.

----------


## georgiaboy

what the heck is a non-libertarian, anyways?  Someone who's into bondage?

----------


## MPN

> The Swede was more interested in how we feel about it than what it says, I think.


Then he's missing the point.

----------


## acptulsa

> Then he's missing the point.


A person can't miss his own point.  And since it was his point--and his thread--I for one won't complain...

But, hey--knock yourself out.

----------


## Pennsylvania

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.


I completely agree! Also, I'd be interested if you were to start a thread on your particular outlook, as many questions have been raised here in the past about the scandinavian social democracies.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> http://www.logicalfallacies.info/


Eh, what? That wasn't a logical fallacy.

Well, well... I'm to tired to answer all questions now. It feels like to few persons understand what I wanted to discuss in the first place so there's no point. Thanks for trying to understand anyway!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Eh, what? That wasn't a logical fallacy.
> 
> Well, well... I'm to tired to answer all questions now. It feels like to few persons understand what I wanted to discuss in the first place so there's no point. Thanks for trying to understand anyway!


Get some sleep! Come back tomorrow...

I believe my response addressed your original question as to why we bring up the Constitution.

---

Exactly. It is the law. If you follow the "rule of law", you must reference the law itself.

The Constitution is an over-arching strategy. It does not have the details. Therefore, it's intent is very important. After that, you should make sure that all detail laws follow the master laws strategic direction.

The frustration I often have with those who oppose the right to bear arms is that they completely ignore the law. For instance:

Anti-gun: Why should people have guns, it's dangerous?

Pro-gun: Let's check the law. OK, the Second Amendment says that we always have that right.

Anti-gun: So, it's an old law. It's still scary to have guns out there.

Pro-gun: They had very specific reasons and intent behind the Second Amendment, I can list them.

Anti-gun: I don't care. It's an old law, and they should be banned. We need to have new laws that ban guns.

Pro-gun: Let's look at the law again. You can amend the Constitution to change the Second Amendment.

Anti-gun: But I just want to have new laws, and I don't want to try to change the Constitution. We can just ban guns anyway, we know that's what we really need.

Pro-gun: That violates the Second Amendment.

Anti-gun: Who cares? It's what I want. And it's an old document. And you will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to prove me wrong. The Court can decide any way it wants, because the law is so very flexible.


Bottom line: When you ignore the law, the politicians do whatever they want. If George Bush or Barack Obama wants to bomb your country, no one can stop them. If they want to torture you, no one can stop them. If they want to take away rights, no one can stop them. If they want to take your property, no one can stop them. If they want to give their buddies trillions of taxpayers dollars, no one can stop them. That's what happens when the rule of law is ignored.

----------


## Old Ducker

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.
> 
> The founding fathers themselves didn't agree on everything and also, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> 
> However, I think Ron Paul is rather okay. I am a Socialist (which is the opposite of Ron Paul) but I love human rights and democracy and I hate torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq (in those areas, I agree with Ron Paul).


All rights derive from property.  Let that sink in awhile.  As a Socialist, you are giving the State title to your life and property.  Everything you have is at the courtesy of the state.  All your property is owned by the state and you merely rent it.   You have no rights, just privileges, that can be revoked at any time.  There is no such thing as "rights"  human or otherwise under Socialism.  

From a legal standpoint, Socialism is no different from feudalism.  The State, i.e. "King"  has absolute title to everything, including you.

----------


## Andrew-Austin

I only read the first four pages of this thread, but damn his point was rather simple and yet you guys still managed to go off topic pretty fast. 

Hes not necessarily disagreeing with the constitution / intent of the founding fathers , he is just saying that its a piss poor argument to start from. I agree completely, simple appeals to authority are not proof of anything.

Though I probably disagree with you completely when it comes to socialism, sorry for any  frustrations that have spawned from this thread Non-Libertarian.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Eh, what? That wasn't a logical fallacy.


Filter - The selective retransmission of information, where a player promotes and/or withholds information to build or defend its position. A Filter is typically employed to reshape characterizations so that their impact or relevance is minimized or, better, put to work for the player.




> Well, well... I'm to tired to answer all questions now.


Pass - The strategic withdrawal from a marketplace or play action. Typically a player will exit or 'bail out' of a marketplace to preserve its resources and/or focus them elsewhere for competitive advantage.

or 

Pause - The deliberate suspension of activity by a player, intended to allow the player to assess the opposition and marketplace and let playing conditions ripen.





> It feels like to few persons understand what I wanted to discuss in the first place so there's no point. Thanks for trying to understand anyway!


Label - A word or phrase - self-given by a player or attributed to an opponent - that reshapes or deepens the meaning of the recipient's position, brand, or reputation. A Label, typically rooted in symbols and metaphors, is characterized by simplification, alliteration, and other semantic tricks.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> I only read the first four pages of this thread, but damn his point was rather simple and yet you guys still managed to go off topic pretty fast. 
> 
> Hes not necessarily disagreeing with the constitution / intent of the founding fathers , he is just saying that its a piss poor argument to start from. I agree completely, simple appeals to authority are not proof of anything.
> 
> Though I probably disagree with you completely when it comes to socialism, sorry for any  frustrations that have spawned from this thread Non-Libertarian.


He is saying that RP supporters "worship" the Constitution. I don't know anyone who does, do you? You should read the whole thread because it just went OT for a spell.

I, also, don't know anyone who uses arguments like, "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" Do you?

And as far as a lawmaker using original intent to decipher law, that is the way it it done.

Do you know anyone who thinks the Constitution is "Holy" and can never be amended? As alluded to earlier, the original constitution only allowed landowners to vote? Do you see any actual supporters bemoaning that change?

The entire argument is a type of ad-hom... imho

here is the OP for reference




> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.
> 
> The founding fathers themselves didn't agree on everything and also, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> 
> However, I think Ron Paul is rather okay. I am a Socialist (which is the opposite of Ron Paul) but I love human rights and democracy and I hate torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq (in those areas, I agree with Ron Paul).

----------


## MPN

> Hes not necessarily disagreeing with the constitution / intent of the founding fathers , he is just saying that its a piss poor argument to start from. I agree completely, simple appeals to authority are not proof of anything.


When debating United States law, why is it a piss poor argument to start with the constitutionality of an issue? 

Unless you are debating an Amendment to the United States Constitution the law is pretty clear about the right to bear arms it really isn't up for discussion.

----------


## Roxi

> This is not true. Most often, you need it for entering another country though. And even if you don't need it to go out, you should bring your passport when going to for example Mexico so you can go BACK to the US if you want to.
> .




I know this is off topic, i apologize for that, i know you can't answer, its not really intended for you to answer i just found it interesting to note that:

 According to information provided by foreign embassies as of April 2001, the following countries do not require a U.S. passport for tourist entry by a U.S. citizen:

    * Antigua and Barbuda
    * Aruba
    * The Bahamas
    * Bermuda
    * The British Virgin Islands (islands include Anegada, Jost Van Dyke, Tortola, and Virgin Gorda)
    * The British West Indies (islands include Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, Turks, and Caicos)
    * Canada
    * Costa Rica
    * Dominica
    * The Dominican Republic
    * The Federated States of Micronesia (islands include Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnei, and Yap)
    * Grenada
    * Jamaica
    * Mexico
    * The Netherlands Antilles (islands include Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, Statia, and Saint Maarten)
    * Panama
    * The Republic of Palau
    * Saint Kitts and Nevis
    * Saint Lucia
    * Saint Pierre and Miquelon Island
    * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 


good to know info if you were to plan on leaving the US without a passport and not come back

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> I only read the first four pages of this thread, but damn his point was rather simple and yet you guys still managed to go off topic pretty fast. 
> 
> Hes not necessarily disagreeing with the constitution / intent of the founding fathers , he is just saying that its a piss poor argument to start from. I agree completely, simple appeals to authority are not proof of anything.
> 
> Though I probably disagree with you completely when it comes to socialism, sorry for any  frustrations that have spawned from this thread Non-Libertarian.


I  couldn't have expressed it better myself. Thank you so much!

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> good to know info if you were to plan on leaving the US without a passport and not come back


And to prove that guy I debated against wrong.  Thanks for backing me up!

----------


## Roxi

> And to prove that guy I debated against wrong.  Thanks for backing me up!



wait huh? 

i was only commenting that i found that info interesting, prior to today i thought you needed a passport to leave or enter any country


im not sure who you are referring to, but i am not taking a stance on the this thread in general because the banter is annoying, and I have some grilling to do

----------


## klamath

I don't worship the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson who was one of my favorite leaders had a very major flaw that almost mirrors the flaws in the constitution, namely never freeing his slaves.
My opinion of the constitution is that the separation of powers was the strongest point besides the bill of rights.  As blundering as the founding fathers were they made a document that was far advanced in creating a system of government that took into account the human flaw for drifting to a suppressive society. Freedom is an inherently  unstable condition. If it is not fought for and constantly guarded, mankind will drift to a controlled state.
As it is shown today even the US constitution could not hold back that inevitable pull toward a controlled society. Many of us feel that improvements can be made in the constitution but fear that once a you open that can of worms what might come out would be far worse than the current constitution with its flaws.

----------


## Athan

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.
> 
> The founding fathers themselves didn't agree on everything and also, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:
> 
> 
> However, I think Ron Paul is rather okay. I am a Socialist (which is the opposite of Ron Paul) but I love human rights and democracy and I hate torture, secret prisons and the occupation of Iraq (in those areas, I agree with Ron Paul).


That is just bad propaganda meant to discredit a free society. The truth is that the Constitution is the agreed upon form of government contract between the people and its government. It is our rule of law and guarantee that our liberties are protected in this country. To ignore it is to ignore contract law. If we just allow law makers to ignore laws, what is the point of prosecuting any criminal who brakes the law?

People fought for this type of Constitutional Republic. If you want socialism go ANYWHERE outside of this country and you will have it. We aren't trying to change socialism elsewhere. This is supposed to be the ONE place where people who want to be free can exercise their lawful rights. Leave us ONE country to be free.

----------


## NMCB3

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. It's just the supreme law. To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> .


Thats the major difference between RP and myself...I dont have much faith in a failed document and the hope that we can somehow restore it peacefully (as if you would even want to) he does.

----------


## Conza88

> I, and others, have explained this to you about a zillion times.  Go back up and review the thread.
> 
> I'm done playing your little game.








> Well, that is in the debate about whether gun control is good or not. That isn't the issue here. The issue here is whether the founding fathers and the Constitution should be trusted blindly. Not whether that specific right should exist or not. I'm criticizing fundamentalism.


Socialism requires faith and a fundamental adherence to ignorance.




> You have obvioously missed the point of this whole discussion. We are not debating whether gun control is good or not.


Yeah, it's not up for debate. It's bad.

*For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!* – Adolf Hitler



> Eh, what? That wasn't a logical fallacy.
> 
> Well, well... I'm to tired to answer all questions now. It feels like to few persons understand what I wanted to discuss in the first place so there's no point. Thanks for trying to understand anyway!


It was understood. You simply erected a strawman and made exceedingly rash generalizations - just as trolls / fools do. No-one _worships_ the Constitution. 

The main reason why Ron refers to it so much, is that it is a great sound bite. He has a few minutes to convey a message. And since the US public is so dumbed down and inexplicitly statist / socialist - you've got to start at the beginning. Teach them about Individualism and Natural law - which the US Constitution was based on essentially.

The US Constitution was erected in a Coup d'etat. The delegates from the States where meant to alter the Articles of Confederation, NOT create a New Constitution.

Anyway, social contract theory is bunk. But individualism isn't. Collectivism is. Democracy is. Socialism is also clinically retarded.

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
Also, do you believe in protecting the rights of minorities? And this fiasco can hardly be called a debate, or an argument, when you refuse to consider your own position. 

*You worship the mob. That's worse than a piece of paper!*

----------


## BKV

> *You worship the mob. That's worse than a piece of paper!*


And you worship Mises.org books, so much that you can't even consider things such as 

"what if I can convince people to voluntarily kill themselves"
"What if private charity isn't enough to help people"
"What would it take to convince me Austrian economics doesn't work"

You "worship" something when you can't consider you might be wrong, can't allow somebody to ask questions and get defensive with a mouth full of foul and fail.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And you worship Mises.org books, so much that you can't even consider things such as 
> 
> "what if I can convince people to voluntarily kill themselves"
> "What if private charity isn't enough to help people"
> "What would it take to convince me Austrian economics doesn't work"
> 
> You "worship" something when you can't consider you might be wrong, can't allow somebody to ask questions and get defensive with a mouth full of foul and fail.


What the hell are you talking about?  "Convince people to voluntarily kill themselves"????

----------


## Conza88

> And you worship Mises.org books, so much that you can't even consider things such as 
> 
> "what if I can convince people to voluntarily kill themselves"
> "What if private charity isn't enough to help people"
> "What would it take to convince me Austrian economics doesn't work"


No silly, I worship truth, justice, logic and reason. Which are CONTAINED within most of those books. 

I have answered EVERY SINGLE one of those questions previously and RECENTLY. 

You are either A) Blind B) Have mental problems C) A troll D) Incapable of reasoning *E)* _All of the above_. Here is one response, where you asked: _"What would it take to convince you Austrian economics doesn't work"_ = 



> - Humans do not act.
> - Humans have no individual interests. 
> - Nobody wants to better their own situation.
> - Value is not subjective.
> - Producing more of something will not deflate the value of the existing stock of it.
> - Business cycle is caused by investors having an irrational freak out



YOU chose to ignore it. Here is the *rest.*




> You "worship" something when you can't consider you might be wrong, can't allow somebody to ask questions and get defensive with a mouth full of foul and fail.


I was a Chomskyite socialist a year and a half ago, until I heard Ron Paul. I then slowly checked all my premises and discharged myself of the fallacies and errors I held over about 6 months. I only moved on when I was convinced.

*What part of that don't you understand?* 

You have serious mental issues. That isn't my problem. You cannot comprehend the most basic of elements about a priorism or deductive reasoning. Do you know what epistemology is? You just looked up the word Praxeology... 

You're inability to comprehend anything is because you believe in a flawed system of obtaining knowledge and the truth. 

These will help you. Until this is fixed, our discussions are pointless - because _your_ epistemology is flawed. The "scientific method" cannot be applied to economics, empiricism is also wrong when applied to economics. Positivism is full of fail.

Josh_LA - why do you hate the Austrian School of Economics?  How in the world can you possibly support Ron Paul?

Empirically if you want to judge which school of thought has been correct, EVERY SINGLE TIME it has been the Austrian School of Economics.. the great depression, the direction of gold after cutting the gold standard in 71, stagflation, the dot com crash, the housing bubble, the sub prime crisis, this whole mess....

Every single time the School has been right.. how you can possibly contend otherwise? Why does the truth piss you off? 

Let your education begin. I cannot learn it _for you._ _I can show you the door_, but *you have to walk through it.*

I now realise the 'scope' of our "relationship" _(lmao)_ better. You are the welfare recipient. Well I'm cutting off the supply. You're going to have to 'educate' yourself. Learn to think for yourself. Which so far - you are incapable of doing. 

Below is your reading list. To which I will continually refer you to - until you actually read / listen to one of them.

*Science is as Science Does*

"The quarrel I have with them today is that, in all their nefarious schemes, they insist on claiming for themselves the mantle of "empirical science." I have a deep personal affection for "empirical science," and so I beg to be allowed to speak a word or two in its defense."

_- Benjamin C. Richards received his BA in philosophy from Covenant College. He is currently completing his PhD in semiconductor quantum optics at the College of Optical Sciences, the University of Arizona._
*An Introduction to Economic Reasoning*

"As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."
*Epistemological Problems of Economics*

"The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."
*Economic Science and the Austrian Method*
*Praxeology and Economic Science:*

*Sec I  :* _"It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."_
*Sec II  :* _"Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."_

*On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology* 

*Sec I  :* _"As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."_
*Sec II  :* _"Let me turn to Mises's solution..."_
*Sec III  :* _"I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."_
*Sec IV  :* _"In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."_
*Counter Revolution of Science by F.A. Hayek*

The problem that Hayek deals with reaches to the core of how economists think about their discipline. There was once such a thing as the human sciences of which economics was part. The goal was to discover and elucidate the exact laws that govern the interaction of people with the material world. It had its own methods and own recommendations.

Then something changed. Science became entirely positivistic in its orientation. Economics was changed from a human science into a poor cousin of the natural sciences that applied positivist methods, and to no great end, for human beings do not move about like molecules but rather engage in choices and unpredictable actions.

What Hayek does in this treatise is link the change in methodology to a change in politics. The economy and people began to be regarded as a collective entity to be examined as if whole societies should be studied as we study planets or other non-volitional beings. It then began to make mistakes, treating facts as theories and theories as contingent. And thus is the state invited in to treat society as a laboratory.

This re-definition of what constitutes science thus had a terrible and even deadly result for human well being and liberty. Science had turned from being a friend of freedom into being employed as its enemy.
Until you read one of these. You are not worth dealing with. Sorry.

----------


## BKV

> No silly, I worship truth, justice, logic and reason. Which are CONTAINED within most of those books. 
> 
> I have answered EVERY SINGLE one of those questions previously and RECENTLY. 
> 
> You are either A) Blind B) Have mental problems C) A troll D) Incapable of reasoning *E)* _All of the above_. Here is one response, where you asked: _"What would it take to convince you Austrian economics doesn't work"_ = 
> 
> YOU chose to ignore it. Here is the *rest.*


Fair enough.





> I was a Chomskyite socialist a year and a half ago, until I heard Ron Paul. I then slowly checked all my premises and discharged myself of the fallacies and errors I held over about 6 months. I only moved on when I was convinced.


All that shows is you've seen one side and another, doesn't mean you've seen all of both sides.




> *What part of that don't you understand?* 
> 
> You have serious mental issues. That isn't my problem. You cannot comprehend the most basic of elements about a priorism or deductive reasoning. Do you know what epistemology is? You just looked up the word Praxeology...


Yes, I know (about) a priorism, empirism, I'm not an expert on deductiion vs induction though. But again, knowing something doesn't mean you agree with it as a practical, economic or political view.




> You're inability to comprehend anything is because you believe in a flawed system of obtaining knowledge and the truth.


No, I can comprehend a lot of things you bring up, doesn't mean I agree it's the best thing to agree with. 




> These will help you. Until this is fixed, our discussions are pointless - because _your_ epistemology is flawed. The "scientific method" cannot be applied to economics, empiricism is also wrong when applied to economics. Positivism is full of fail.


Actually, I don't agree scientific method can't be applied to economics. But that wasn't why I brought up the SM, I was asking you, if, unless and until you consider a criteria which would satisfy how you can be convinced, nothing will matter (and thanks for answering, like you just asked me, until I am willing to listen, you will not waste time with me. This is part of the scientific method of knowing when to stop and start discussions)




> Josh_LA - why do you hate the Austrian School of Economics?  How in the world can you possibly support Ron Paul?


Hahah, I don't hate Austrian economics, I just don't think it can either be achieved or sustained by non-aggression, *or without realizing that talk is cheap, might makes right.* 

You already know why I support Ron Paul, I want smaller government and more freedom for myself.




> Empirically if you want to judge which school of thought has been correct, EVERY SINGLE TIME it has been the Austrian School of Economics.. the great depression, the direction of gold after cutting the gold standard in 71, stagflation, the dot com crash, the housing bubble, the sub prime crisis, this whole mess....


I never disagreed with that, have I?

I never said Austrian economics doesn't work, have I? (or have I ever said it's not the best perspective to evaluate economics). 

*I think the only major disagreement you and I have* (and it's more obvious now). Is that I'm willing to admit NAP is cheap talk and might gets things done. Also, I'm willing to say that if people can't be helped voluntarily, too bad,  some people don't deserve to live and only those who can help themselves get what they deserve. *(in other words, if you believe in personal responsiblity to the extreme logical end, you should have no problem saying that if nobody helps you, you have nobody to blame).*





> Every single time the School has been right.. how you can possibly contend otherwise? Why does the truth piss you off?


No, I have not once said Austrian economics is wrong about economics, have I?

I've only said that talk is cheap and knowing a school of economics is not enough.

No, the truth doesn't piss me off, you don't piss me off either. You're the one who's always losing patience and venting.




> Let your education begin. I cannot learn it _for you._ _I can show you the door_, but *you have to walk through it.*


Yes, or you can answer some key questions that'll cut through some crap.





> I now realise the 'scope' of our "relationship" _(lmao)_ better. You are the welfare recipient. Well I'm cutting off the supply. You're going to have to 'educate' yourself. Learn to think for yourself. Which so far - you are incapable of doing.


In terms of learning, yeah, I happily admit I am a lazy one if I'm not passionately interested (I'm a self learner on other things such as evolution, atheism, and Christianity)

I didn't mean to burden you with feeding me info, but I figured if you're so self righteous you'd be doing yourself a favor by showing off 




> Below is your reading list. To which I will continually refer you to - until you actually read / listen to one of them.


Appreciated.






> *Science is as Science Does*
> 
> "The quarrel I have with them today is that, in all their nefarious schemes, they insist on claiming for themselves the mantle of "empirical science." I have a deep personal affection for "empirical science," and so I beg to be allowed to speak a word or two in its defense."
> 
> _- Benjamin C. Richards received his BA in philosophy from Covenant College. He is currently completing his PhD in semiconductor quantum optics at the College of Optical Sciences, the University of Arizona._
> *An Introduction to Economic Reasoning*
> 
> "As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."
> *Epistemological Problems of Economics*
> ...


Fair challenge. Thanks

----------


## BKV

> What the hell are you talking about?  "Convince people to voluntarily kill themselves"????


Like Heaven's Gate & Jonestown, and Jesus Christ, or our warmonger politicians.

Convince people that something is worth dying for, or there are worst things than dying.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Like Heaven's Gate & Jonestown, and Jesus Christ, or our warmonger politicians.
> 
> Convince people that something is worth dying for, or there are worst things than dying.


Your associations are very strange, Josh.  Why would you advocate something like Heaven's Gate or Jonestown?

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Hehe, okay, Conza88 was a communist before? Well, I've got som advice for everybody. If you want to convert people to your political ideology, whatever it might be, do not try to recruit more people in the same way as Conza88. It doesn't work. :-)  Cya!

----------


## Conza88

> Hehe, okay, Conza88 was a communist before? Well, I've got som advice for everybody. If you want to convert people to your political ideology, whatever it might be, do not try to recruit more people in the same way as Conza88. It doesn't work. :-)  Cya!


No, I was an independent Chomskyite. 

And when attempting to walk someone through the Socratic Method, it requires intellectual honesty. You failed _dismally_. When you are unwilling to watch a 5 minute video - because you are scared it will completely shatter your paradigm, that's when you know you've got problems. But that's just the beginning of it. 2 syllable responses can hardly be called a position. A grunt is clarified as a debate? lol

Byeeeeeee.  And let us hope you may never have to experience the system you wish to impose on others.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> because you are scared it will completely shatter your paradigm


As earlier, you think you know everything about me.  Let me give you some advice. I guess you won't admit you will use it but who knows? When adult people debate different things, they most often don't use slander and defamation to win an argument. Hopefully you'll learn that in the future.  Sadly, you made this whole thread, a thread that I wanted to consist of an interesting discussion, a flame war zone because of your unpleasant attitude and inability to discuss the topic.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> As earlier, you think you know everything about me.  Let me give you some advice. I guess you won't admit you will use it but who knows? When adult people debate different things, they most often don't use slander and defamation to win an argument. Hopefully you'll learn that in the future.  Sadly, you made this whole thread, a thread that I wanted to consist of an interesting discussion, a flame war zone because of your unpleasant attitude and inability to discuss the topic.


Uh... you wanted to have an "interesting discussion" based on a false premise that amounted to an ad-hom attack. You have ignored valid responses and used many tactics identified as SOP for partisan hacks. And now are complaining about a non-existent "flame-war"

Hmmmm...

----------


## Danke

> Uh... you wanted to have an "interesting discussion" based on a false premise that amounted to an ad-hom attack. You have ignored valid responses and used many tactics identified as SOP for partisan hacks. And now are complaining about a non-existent "flame-war"
> 
> Hmmmm...


Couldn't have said it better.  Thanks Mike.

----------


## acptulsa

And seemingly denying the existence of a calm and substantive discussion through the middle of the thread as well...

----------


## Conza88

> As earlier, you think you know everything about me.  Let me give you some advice. I guess you won't admit you will use it but who knows? When adult people debate different things, they most often don't use slander and defamation to win an argument. Hopefully you'll learn that in the future.  Sadly, you made this whole thread, a thread that I wanted to consist of an interesting discussion, a flame war zone because of your unpleasant attitude and inability to discuss the topic.


I only know what you have said. I could only assume with what you hadn't. As is clearly visible you were doing your VERY best to say nothing at all.

Let me give you some advice. When adult people debate different things, they don't use rash generalizations backed up with nothing of substance but mere conjecture, which essentially has about as much validity as saying _"taxation is voluntary"_, which it isn't. 

Hopefully you'll learn that in the future.  Sadly, you destroyed this whole thread, a thread that could have led to your enlightenment. I wanted it to consist of an interesting discussion, a discussion of value - not strawmen, ad hominem, generalizations and throwing out "worship" every possible chance. I wanted to enlighten your ignorance but because of your unpleasant attitude and inability to discuss the topic, it wasn't too be.

Oh well. Your loss.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> I only know what you have said. I could only assume with what you hadn't. As is clearly visible you were doing your VERY best to say nothing at all.
> 
> Let me give you some advice. When adult people debate different things, they don't use rash generalizations backed up with nothing of substance but mere conjecture, which essentially has about as much validity as saying _"taxation is voluntary"_, which it isn't. 
> 
> Hopefully you'll learn that in the future.  Sadly, you destroyed this whole thread, a thread that could have led to your enlightenment. I wanted it to consist of an interesting discussion, a discussion of value - not strawmen, ad hominem, generalizations and throwing out "worship" every possible chance. I wanted to enlighten your ignorance but because of your unpleasant attitude and inability to discuss the topic, it wasn't too be.
> 
> Oh well. Your loss.


The purpose of this thread was not to "enlighten" me, it was to discuss the topic as described in the first message.

Everybody's loss, I would say.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> The purpose of this thread was not to "enlighten" me, it was to discuss the topic as described in the first message.
> 
> Everybody's loss, I would say.


Funny how you have ignored most all of the valid discussion on the topic and just focused on the propaganda aspects.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Having read several other of the world's constitutions, I believe that the USA's is the best in limiting federal government.  However, I think there are definitely some improvements to be made.

I would start by editing the second Amendment to provide more clarity.

I would then rewrite the Preamble to focus on the purpose of the document as a limiter of federal power, and get rid of that clause "To promote the general welfare".

There are several other changes I would make, such as adding a clause banning a central bank, and put Ayn Rand's suggestion of adding an amendment insuring economic freedom into the bill of rights.

----------


## klamath

> The purpose of this thread was not to "enlighten" me, it was to discuss the topic as described in the first message.
> 
> Everybody's loss, I would say.


So it was to try and enlighten us? What was the point of your thread? Like others have said you seem to ignore the people that tried to have a civil debate with you.

----------


## Conza88

> The purpose of this thread was not to "enlighten" me, it was to discuss the topic as described in the first message.
> 
> Everybody's loss, I would say.


Yeah it was discussed and refuted almost instantaneously by countless people. You pressed on regardless.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Well, I have to thank you for a good laugh though:

Me: Well, I disagree with many policies of the Soviet Union also.
Conza88: Like the public ownership of the means of production?
Me: No
Conza88: Hahah! You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production" - LMFAO, that is what socialism is DEFINED AS!

That totally made my day! Maybe it was worth starting this thread even though you destroyed it. 

If you would have written that last thing in a less cocky way, like only "You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production"?", then it would have been okay and I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it but this was hilarious because you were so confident and you were so wrong, hehehe. So well-deserved.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Uh... you wanted to have an "interesting discussion" based on a false premise that amounted to an ad-hom attack. You have ignored valid responses and used many tactics identified as SOP for partisan hacks. And now are complaining about a non-existent "flame-war"
> 
> Hmmmm...


That's about it. He/She found that there is no one here that "worships" the Constitution, and that there are valid reasons to reference it.

Only thing left to do was argue with Conza...

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Last message on page 15 if you want a good laugh. That's all I say. Have fun!

----------


## MPN

> Uh... you wanted to have an "interesting discussion" based on a false premise that amounted to an ad-hom attack. You have ignored valid responses and used many tactics identified as SOP for partisan hacks. And now are complaining about a non-existent "flame-war"
> 
> Hmmmm...



The only response I received from him was that there were too many posts to respond to everyone, and that I why he didn't respond to mine.

If you see the humor in this, I applaud you.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> He/She found ... that there are valid reasons to reference it (the Constitution).
> 
> Only thing left to do was argue with Conza...


 I knew there were valid reasons to reference any legal document before. Seems like almost no one understood anything of anything I wrote.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> The only response I received from him was that there were too many posts to respond to everyone, and that I why he didn't respond to mine.


That wasn't a personal response to you.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

Now I have a nice signature as a memory also. Legendary!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I knew there were valid reasons to reference any legal document before. Seems like almost no one understood anything of anything I wrote.


Got it. You were banned last time you were here. I recognize the style now.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> Got it. You were banned last time you were here. I recognize the style now.


Hmm, If I was banned, I never noticed it myself.

Edit: Aha, you mean I was another user before? Nope.

----------


## Conza88

> Well, I have to thank you for a good laugh though:
> 
> Me: Well, I disagree with many policies of the Soviet Union also.
> Conza88: Like the public ownership of the means of production?
> Me: No
> Conza88: Hahah! You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production" - LMFAO, that is what socialism is DEFINED AS!
> 
> That totally made my day! Maybe it was worth starting this thread even though you destroyed it. 
> 
> If you would have written that last thing in a less cocky way, like only "You don't agree with the "public ownership of the means of production"?", then it would have been okay and I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it but this was hilarious because you were so confident and you were so wrong, hehehe. So well-deserved.


 3 letters "disagree" and I thought you were answering to "agree". 

Please note - _YOU_ did nothing worthy there. Not sure what you're so ecstatic about lol.. 

I really couldn't care less ahah... its quite clear to the layman the one who is correct. _YOU_ wouldn't even enter the battle field. You ran like pansy at every opportunity. Let me know when you are game.

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> 3 letters "disagree" and I thought you were answering to "agree".


Maybe not a big deal but as I said, it was because you were so cocky. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it. The fact that you "laughed your ass off", it's just so extremely funny I think.

----------


## Conza88

> Maybe not a big deal but as I said, it was because you were so cocky. Otherwise, I wouldn't have made a big deal out of it. The fact that you "laughed your ass off", its just so extremely funny I think.


It's not and I could make just as big a deal about you implying _Taxation is voluntary_!?  And pretty much every single other response you hold. 

ROFLCOPTER?!?! OOOooohh!!!! :fatkid: 1!111111

----------


## Non-Libertarian

> I still am... Taxation is VOLUNTARY!? 
> 
> ROFLCOPTER?!?! OOOooohh!!!! :fatkid: 1!111111


 Weak, man. Try again.

----------


## Conza88

> Weak, man. Try again.


No need to try again. Quotes are good enough. 




> Voluntary or coercive socialist?





> Voluntary.






> Oh cool, so you don't believe in the the re-distribution of wealth? Some socialist / statist you are!






> Yes, I do.



You believe in the re-distribution of wealth, which can only be achieved _through coercion and the threat of violence_. Taxes are also a re-distribution of wealth. Unless you don't believe in taxes? 

A voluntary socialist is someone who lives within a free market system, they form communes, and "live for eachother." Which usually ends up like Jonestown.

----------


## MPN

> Taxes are also a re-distribution of wealth. Unless you don't believe in taxes?


This is a misconception. Taxes are only a redistribution of wealth when they go to social engineering programs like welfare. 

No government could operate without taxes, and unless you are advocating anarchy every school of thought recognizes the need for government of some size.

----------


## BKV

> Your associations are very strange, Josh.  Why would you advocate something like Heaven's Gate or Jonestown?


*That's not the point!*

I don't associate with Jonestown, or Jesus , or Scientology,* I am asking you IF I CAN convince people to voluntarily do stupid things*, would that be wrong or illegal? How does your belief in freedom answer such a thing?

----------


## acptulsa

> This is a misconception. Taxes are only a redistribution of wealth when they go to social engineering programs like welfare. 
> 
> No government could operate without taxes, and unless you are advocating anarchy every school of thought recognizes the need for government of some size.


Taxes are money, money is wealth, and therefore he is technically correct.  Now, when this wealth is redistributed to a responsible contractor and the streets are improved, you could say that the wealth was redistributed from the individuals of a community to the streets they use, and make a case that this isn't a redistribution but rather an expense that directly benefits the taxpayer.  But, of course, this never happens with federal tax dollars in this nation today.

----------


## BKV

> Taxes are money, money is wealth, and therefore he is technically correct.  Now, when this wealth is redistributed to a responsible contractor and the streets are improved, you could say that the wealth was redistributed from the individuals of a community to the streets they use, and make a case that this isn't a redistribution but rather an expense that directly benefits the taxpayer.  But, of course, this never happens with federal tax dollars in this nation today.


No, it still happens, as long as money goes from A to B, it's being transferred (re-distributed), how well and fairly its distributed is irrelevant (how happy the givers were is also irrelevant)

----------


## MPN

> Taxes are money, money is wealth, and therefore he is technically correct.  Now, when this wealth is redistributed to a responsible contractor and the streets are improved, you could say that the wealth was redistributed from the individuals of a community to the streets they use, and make a case that this isn't a redistribution but rather an expense that directly benefits the taxpayer.  But, of course, this never happens with federal tax dollars in this nation today.


This is a good point.

By absolute definition he is correct. 

I think the stronger point however, is that unless you are advocating anarchy there is no such thing as government without taxes.

----------


## RCA

Without rights morality doesn't exist. All rights are derived from property. Political calamity of any form can and should be addressed by defending property rights. The Constitution is nothing more than a legal contract between the government and the people to respect their lawful property.

Welcome to the forum, BTW!

----------


## Conza88

> This is a misconception. Taxes are only a redistribution of wealth when they go to social engineering programs like welfare. 
> 
> No government could operate without taxes, and unless you are advocating anarchy every school of thought recognizes the need for government of some size.


Negative. No misconception. It is clear as day.




> Taxes are money, money is wealth, and therefore *he is technically correct.*  Now, when this wealth is redistributed to a responsible contractor and the streets are improved, you could say that the wealth was redistributed from the individuals of a community to the streets they use, and make a case that this isn't a redistribution but rather an expense that directly benefits the taxpayer.  But, of course, this never happens with federal tax dollars in this nation today.


Ron Paul: "If a gangster steals money and is successful you don't celebrate."  And the government is $#@! at everything, by it's very nature. *Roads are better of private.*




> This is a good point.
> 
> *By* _absolute_ *definition he is correct.* 
> 
> I think the stronger point however, is that unless you are advocating anarchy there is no such thing as government without taxes.


"In epistemology, absolute means certain or indubitable as opposed to probable or hypothetical. As a substantive, the absolute is the ultimate basis of reality, the principle underlying the universe."

By a simple definition I am correct as well.  

As for the latter, that is a side point. The main point - show the "socialist", he is wrong. And now he is stuck with his contradictions... 

And I don't associate with anarchy at all. The logical conclusion of Libertarianism, the consistent approach is anarcho-capitalism. You'd know, if you decided to read on the subject. Which, if you are honest with yourself - you know nothing about, bar feelings.

----------


## MPN

> And I don't associate with anarchy at all. The logical conclusion of Libertarianism, the consistent approach is anarcho-capitalism. You'd know, if you decided to read on the subject. Which, if you are honest with yourself - you know nothing about, bar feelings.


I'm not going to get into a debate on anarcho-capitalism, or the epistemological correctness of your definition of libertarianism and 'logical' conclusions.  

I will say, however, that to attack my knowledge of a subject area based on a relatively small amount of discussion is ridiculous. Congratulations on the ability to read my mind.

----------


## Conza88

> I'm not going to get into a debate anarcho-capitalism


Smartest thing you've done yet. 




> or the epistemological correctness of your definition of libertarianism and 'logical' conclusions.


Because you have nothing to offer... 




> I will say, however, that to attack my knowledge of a subject area based on a relatively small amount of discussion is ridiculous. Congratulations on the ability to read my mind.


Strawman.

----------


## MPN

> Strawman.


Cop out. 




> And I don't associate with anarchy at all. The logical conclusion of Libertarianism, the consistent approach is anarcho-capitalism. *You'd know, if you decided to read on the subject. Which, if you are honest with yourself - you know nothing about, bar feelings.*

----------


## Conza88

> Cop out.


Ah yes, quality observation.

Prove me wrong.

*Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe*

Read _at least one_ on that list?

----------


## Conza88

bump for Non-Libertarian running away from reality....

----------


## MPN

Anarcho-capitalism is as flawed an idea as socialism.

----------


## Conza88

> Anarcho-capitalism is as flawed an idea as socialism.


Ok, thanks for your opinion. Which is worth jack $#@!. 

Thank you for also making it painfully clear you've never read a book on the subject.

Care to make an argument to back up your statement? Yet again, we get some clown trying to refute something they don't understand.

Intellectual honesty?

----------


## MPN

> Ok, thanks for your opinion. Which is worth jack $#@!. 
> 
> Thank you for also making it painfully clear you've never read a book on the subject.
> 
> Care to make an argument to back up your statement? Yet again, we get some clown trying to refute something they don't understand.
> 
> Intellectual honesty?


Why don't you outline your proposed perfect anarcho-capitalist system?

I understand it will have to be brief, but humor me. Just so we are on the same page and I dont make any more dreaded straw man arguments. Like all subject areas, there is quite a bit of work on the topic. By asking for this, I am attempting to prevent future misrepresentation on my part of what (not why) you believe.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> bump for Non-Libertarian running away from reality ...


lol!  Nice job pwning the statist, conza!

----------


## Conza88

> Why don't you outline your proposed perfect anarcho-capitalist system?


Thank you for outlining you have no idea what you are talking about. It is not a "system", it is a market.

"How would your system work" is an inherently statist question.




> I understand it will have to be brief, but humor me. Just so we are on the same page and I don’t make any more dreaded straw man arguments. Like all subject areas, there is quite a bit of work on the topic. By asking for this, I am attempting to prevent future misrepresentation on my part of what (not why) you believe.


By being brief and restricting me to essentially sound bites, it resembles Chomskys "Manufactured consent".

I've already given you your reading list, and it gives full details of the system. There are audiobooks in the most prominent and pdf's of basically them all. There are no excuses. All easily accessible for free.

This may be the short cut you are looking for. Anarcho-capitalist FAQ




> Ah yes, quality observation.
> 
> Prove me wrong.
> 
> *Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe*
> 
> Read _at least one_ on that list?



Now if you couldn't be bothered reading or learning, be honest. Say so, shut the fck up and $#@! the fck down. And don't act like you have any idea what you're on about. Because it _is evident - you don't_.

----------


## Kludge

> shut the fck up and $#@! the fck down.


I don't think that's how the phrase is supposed to be said...

----------


## Conza88

> I don't think that's how the phrase is supposed to be said...


Either is good. Tis' how it is ova ere'.

----------


## MPN

> Now if you couldn't be bothered reading or learning, be honest. Say so, shut the fck up and $#@! the fck down. And don't act like you have any idea what you're on about. Because it _is evident - you don't_.


Being tough on the internet is cute. 

You have failed to provide any incentive for a respectful debate. Congratulations, anarchy wins.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Conza will be taking a 3 day break from the forums.

----------


## forsmant

How did I miss this discussion?

----------


## Kludge

> How did I miss this discussion?


By not hitting it.

Ahhh, but you ask, "does that necessarily mean I missed the discussion, though?" and the answer, my friend, is a resounding "YES!"

Yes to representation!

Yes to production!

Yes to the US of A!

*USA

USA

USA*

----------


## forsmant

I will have to read all pages now.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

> Why do Ron Paul and so many of his fans worship the Constitution? I think that arguments such as "our founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms should be a constitutional right and therefore, it must be a constitutional right" are really bad. Who cares? One should rely on sound argument instead of reverence for the founders. 
> 
> *The rule of law is a sound argument*
> 
> 
> I think Ron Paul relies to much on the latter. One example is in the two last paragraphs at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Who cares about the intent of the founders? It's totally irrelevant in a debate. The Constitution is not holy. *It's just the supreme law.* To think it's perfect and always will be is like Christian/Muslim fundamentalism.
> 
> As a Swede, I think it's weird when I argue against Ron Paul's fans from the United States who use the Constitution as some kind of argument. The Constitution of Sweden is different and says other things, (some things are rather Socialist actually). Does that mean Socialism is right? I don't think there is any perfect Constitution in the whole wide world.
> 
> ...


The only way you will convert to American conservatism/libertarianism is once you are bombarded with enough crimes of government.

----------


## PaulaGem

The Constitution isn't about the right to bear arms, freedom from religion or any other of the "rights".    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution both share a common theory of government and represent of that theory which is the foundation of government in this country.-

Government is to be derived from the consent of the governed.

If we need a new document to make this work - it will have to be done.   The current Constitution may  or may not be perverted beyond the point that it is useful.

The point is that it is "WE THE PEOPLE" not them which owns the corporations and pays the lobbyists.

If the people of Sweden drafted a document and voted on it because it was better than what they had before - it stands through consent of the governed.

Note - the Declaration pronounces certain inalienable rights and when those rights are denied by the current government the people have the moral right and the political power (if they choose to exercise it) to change that government.

----------


## Met Income

> Well, okay. Thank you for a rather good answer and a relevant reply without personal accusations and inquiry.


Personal accusations?  You just called Conza evil.  Good grief.

----------


## Met Income

> I have not missed this point. I have actually never thought this wasn't the case. If I believe in natural rights, I believe in them because of my own reasoning, not because of some old texts (dare I say scriptures? No.).
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't understand why he would pity ME for it. I don't suffer from it.


You don't get it.  We don't worship the Constitution because IT gives us rights.  We appreciate the Constitution because he doesn't take away our inherent rights that we deserve.

----------

